list_components

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes return format (list with fields) and mentions filtering. It doesn't disclose side effects, but as a read-only list tool, this is sufficient. Could add note about non-destructiveness.

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?

Concise docstring style with Args, Returns, Example. Front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 one optional parameter and existing output schema, the description fully explains what is returned and how to filter. Examples cover typical use. Complete for this tool's complexity.

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 coverage 0% but description adds examples of valid category values ('layout', 'forms', 'data-display'), which compensates. The parameter meaning is clear from context.

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 clearly states 'List all documented Reflex components' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_component' (single) and 'search_components' (search) through context. The optional category filter is explicitly mentioned.

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?

Examples show usage with and without filter. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the sibling tool names imply alternatives. The description lacks explicit exclusions but is clear enough for typical use.

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