List components

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only, closed-world nature is covered. The description adds that this is a complete catalogue with optional filters, but does not disclose ordering, pagination, or default inclusion of deprecated items. This is adequate given the annotation coverage, but not rich.

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 one short sentence: 'The component catalogue, optionally filtered by category or status.' It is front-loaded with the core noun phrase, adds the conditional filter clause, and contains no redundant or filler words. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with two optional enum parameters and no required fields, the description covers the essential what (component catalogue) and how (optional filters). It does not describe the return shape or pagination, but the tool name and 'catalogue' imply a list, and readOnlyHint covers safety. A bit more detail about what each catalogue entry includes would push it higher.

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%: both status and category have clear descriptions ('Filter by maturity.' and 'Filter by category.') and enums. The description merely paraphrases the schema with 'filtered by category or status', adding no new semantic meaning, so it stays at the baseline 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 identifies the resource ('the component catalogue') and implies the listing operation, distinguishing it from single-item siblings like get_component. It does not use an explicit active verb beyond the title, and it does not name a specific sibling alternative, so it stops 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus search, get_component, or get_layout. 'Optionally filtered by category or status' implies flexibility but not a selection criterion. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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