list_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool lists components with categories and descriptions, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose behavior around the 'limit' parameter (e.g., pagination, default limits) or clarify what 'available' means. The description is sufficient for a simple listing but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the core function. It contains no filler or redundant information. This is an appropriately sized and structured description.

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 the simple two-parameter tool, the description is mostly adequate, but it leaves gaps. It does not clarify the interaction between the 'category' parameter and the sibling get_components_by_category tool, nor does it explain limit behavior or return structure beyond categories and descriptions. The lack of an output schema and annotations means these details should be in the description.

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%, with both limit and category having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The description mentions output fields (categories and descriptions) but does not elaborate on the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool's function: 'List all available VengeanceUI components with their categories and descriptions'. It uses a specific verb (List) and resource (components), and mentions the return fields. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like get_component_info (single component) and list_categories (categories only).

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 phrase 'List all available' implies this is the comprehensive listing tool, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as directing users to search_components for query-based search or get_components_by_category for filtered results. Guidance is implied but not explicit.

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