get_local_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the default page limit, the columnar-vs-verbose output format behavior, and the compacting trade-off that includeProperties affects. It stops short of stating read-only semantics or rate limits, but the disclosure of output structure and format is substantive.

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?

Front-loads the resource and returned shape, then layers parameter guidance efficiently. Dense but each sentence earns its place; minor packing of multiple ideas into single sentences keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by spelling out the returned object shape ({ components, total, offset, limit, pageCount }) and paging behavior. The one gap is includeComponentSets, which is undocumented everywhere.

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 80%, so the schema already documents limit, offset, verbose and includeProperties, making 3 the baseline. The description adds marginal value (default limit 500, catalog use-case for includeProperties) but omits any mention of includeComponentSets, leaving one parameter unexplained in both places.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (local components across all pages), then enumerates the exact fields returned (id, name, type, description, publish key, property count). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like search_components or get_component_property_definitions without opening the schema.

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?

Offers contextual guidance on parameters (paging every component, using includeProperties 'for building library catalogs'), but never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer this over search_components. Usage is implied through parameter hints rather than explicit selection criteria.

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