list_idux_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the meaningful default (Vue3) and that the result is the complete set. However, it says nothing about the read-only nature, whether the list is cached, or what a returned entry contains, leaving moderate gaps.

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?

A single tight sentence with the scope and version default front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter list tool, though it could front-load more clearly what is returned.

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?

For a simple no-required-argument list tool this is roughly adequate, but with no output schema the description never indicates the shape or contents of a component entry, and it omits any note on the sibling tools that refine or cache this list.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the only parameter (vueVersion, enum vue2/vue3, default vue3) is fully documented in the schema; the description's parenthetical about the Vue3 default merely restates it. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb+resource (获取...列表 / list of idux components) and adds scope via "所有可用的" (all available), which implicitly separates it from search_components. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call this to enumerate everything, versus the sibling search_components for filtered lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of the alternatives, and no prerequisites or caching guidance in light of update_components_cache.

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