get_library_components

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, error handling, or performance implications. Given that annotations are missing, the description carries the full burden but fails to inform the agent about these aspects.

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 sentence that is clear, direct, and front-loaded. It contains no unnecessary words or information.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter. The description is sufficient for listing components, but it does not explain the return format (e.g., list of component IDs or details). With no output schema, this information would be helpful for the agent to interpret results. Adequate but could be improved.

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 covers the single parameter with a description that matches the tool's description. The schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter semantics are adequately defined. The tool's description adds no extra meaning beyond restating the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 the action ('List') and the resource ('components in a specific library collection'), with the identification method ('by collection key or name'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_local_components and get_library_collections.

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 when to use the tool (when you have a library collection key or name to list its components), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. For example, it could note that get_local_components lists local components instead. This is adequate but not thorough.

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