list_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get information' implies a read-only operation, which is a useful signal, but the description does not disclose any potential limitations, response shape, pagination, or authentication requirements. It is minimal but not misleading.

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 two short sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds a practical use case. 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?

This is a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description is largely sufficient. It states what the tool does, the resource scope, and a suggested use case; the schema handles the filter. It could mention what fields are returned, but that gap is minor for this complexity level.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% for the single optional 'active' parameter, so the schema already explains the filter. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is required given the schema coverage. Baseline 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 states a clear action ('Get information') and resource ('all components on the server'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that target applications, snapshots, or deployments. It also adds a use case ('find components that can be deployed'). It doesn't explicitly contrast with get_component_versions, but the scope is reasonably clear.

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 one concrete usage context: 'Use this to find components that can be deployed.' However, it doesn't mention when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives like get_component_versions or list_applications, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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