List Components

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

Annotations already establish read-only and open-world behavior, but the description adds valuable context: document scans report failures via a 'coverage' field, while page-scoped scans return structured errors directly. This explains edge-case behavior beyond what the annotations provide.

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 only two sentences long. The first sentence states the core purpose and capabilities; the second provides a concise behavioral nuance about error handling. Every phrase earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 straightforward with optional parameters, and an output schema exists so return values are documented there. The description explains the key difference between document and page scope error behavior, which is essential for correct usage. It lacks nothing critical for an AI agent to invoke it properly.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the description is not required to repeat them. It does reference 'filtering and scope options' generically, which aligns with the schema but adds no new detail. Given the schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'List components in the document.' It explicitly mentions filtering and scope options, and the additional detail about failure reporting distinguishes it from generic list tools. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 states the primary use case (listing components) and even distinguishes between document and page scope behaviors. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the resource is so specific that confusion with sibling list tools (style_list, variable_list) is unlikely.

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