x3d_list_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains both behaviors (listing all components vs. nodes in a component) and gives examples of valid component names. It does not mention edge cases like invalid component names, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 well-structured: a concise opening sentence, clear usage instructions, and an Args block. Every sentence adds value, and the front-loaded first sentence immediately conveys the tool's purpose.

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 (1 optional parameter), and an output schema exists, so return values are not needed in the description. The description covers both invocation modes and parameter semantics, making it complete for an agent to select and use correctly.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains that component_name is optional, what an empty value means, and provides concrete examples (Geometry3D, Lighting, Shape, etc.). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'List X3D components, or list all nodes in a specific component.' This gives a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like x3d_list_profiles by focusing on components rather than profiles.

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 provides clear usage context: call with no arguments to see all components, or with a component name to see its nodes. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the two invocation modes are clearly explained.

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