list_brix_components

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned (names, IDs, descriptions, category groupings) and grouping behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any prerequisites, or if results are paginated, leaving safety ambiguous.

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, perfectly front-loaded with the action and resource. Every phrase adds value. No redundancy or fluff.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, description adequately covers purpose, return fields, and structure (grouped by category). Missing details like 'all' vs 'available' or ordering, but sufficient for a simple list tool.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. According to rubric, zero parameters baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info, but that is appropriate as none are needed.

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?

Description clearly specifies verb 'list' and resource 'components and component sets from the BrixUI Design System, grouped by category.' It distinguishes itself from siblings ('get', 'search', 'tokens') by implying a broad overview rather than detail lookup or search.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies it's for listing all components grouped by category, but lacks mention of alternatives or conditions. The context of sibling tools is not leveraged.

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