List components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only browsing purpose through words like 'List' and 'browse', but does not mention result format, pagination, default status behavior, or whether filters can be combined. This is acceptable for a simple list tool but leaves some behavior unspecified.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states action and filters, the second provides the practical use case. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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—two optional parameters, full schema coverage, no nested objects. The description covers what is listed, the filters, and the intended workflow. Minor omissions like output shape or ordering do not significantly hinder use, but the lack of annotation support means a small gap remains.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description only restates that filtering by lifecycle status or tag is possible, adding no deeper semantic meaning such as matching rules or filter combination behavior.

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 states a specific action ('List all design components in the registry') and clearly identifies the resource and available filters. It distinguishes itself from sibling get/find tools by emphasizing the broad, all-items browsing behavior.

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 gives explicit practical guidance: 'Use this to browse what already exists before proposing a new component.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the intended context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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