List components

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool lists summaries and supports filtering, which is useful. But it omits details like default behavior when no filters are provided, pagination, or any side-effect guarantees. A simple list tool likely needs no such warnings, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two punchy sentences: a front-loaded question that sets context, followed by a compact declaration of the tool's output and optional filtering. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists and the tool has only two optional parameters, the description covers the core functionality well. It mentions the returned data points (names, status, tags, summaries) and the filtering capability. It lacks some nuance like how filters interact, but overall 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description only says 'optionally filtered by status or tag.' It adds the meaning that these parameters are filters, but it does not explain the tag parameter's format or semantics, nor what values are allowed beyond the enum visible in the schema. The description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 opens with 'What components exist?' and then states 'Lists component names, status, tags, and summaries' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_component (single retrieval) and list_tokens (different resource).

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?

'optionally filtered by status or tag' provides clear context for when to use the tool (exploration/discovery). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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