component_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the returned fields (bus addresses, microsecond timing) and an output schema exists, so return format is covered, but it says nothing about read-only nature, auth needs, or rate limits.

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 scope, then the usage trigger, then the filter note. Every sentence earns its place; only minor redundancy across the interface list and the filter example.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be re-explained, and the description covers scope, usage trigger, and the single filter parameter. Complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that 'bus' filters by interface and supplies the candidate values (i2c/uart/timer_pwm/gpio_timing) plus an example ('i2c'). This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema.

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 (list) and resource (sensors/modules), scoped by interface categories (i2c/uart/timer_pwm/gpio_timing), and notes what is included (addresses, microsecond timing). The list-vs-get distinction from the sibling component_get is implicit rather than named, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use trigger ('when answering which off-the-shelf part for temp/humidity/ranging/attitude, check here first, don't report from memory'). Strong positive guidance, but no explicit exclusion or named alternative such as component_get for a specific part.

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