themes_list_components

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get all', which indicates a read operation, but it does not disclose what the returned data looks like (e.g., names only), whether any authentication is required, or any potential rate limits. For a tool with no output schema, this leaves some ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality sufficiently. It could perhaps mention that the list contains component names or is sorted, but this is not essential for basic use. Overall, it is complete for a straightforward list tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema shows zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter-related information, which is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get all available Radix themes components' uses a specific verb 'Get all' and clearly identifies the resource 'Radix themes components'. It is distinct from sibling tools like themes_get_component_source and themes_get_component_documentation, which focus on fetching specific component details.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage: to discover available components before diving into individual source or documentation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, or mention any exclusions. For a simple list tool, the implied usage is clear but not formally articulated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.