nucleo-components-list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the data originates from a plugin registration hook and the response contains declarations (names and schemas) rather than executable code, which matters for trusting the output.

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?

Front-loaded with what is listed, then usage, then disambiguation, then the write path. Every sentence carries information, though the nc/collection and nc/native-form references are dense for a reader without that context.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must characterize the return value, and it does at a high level (names and schemas of registered sources and actions). It does not describe the shape of those schemas or whether entries are paginated, which is a minor gap for a discovery 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies an unfiltered enumeration rather than a filtered query.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: lists data sources and actions registered by site plugins via the nucleo/register_components hook, and specifies the payload is names and schemas, never code. It also explicitly separates itself from component blocks, which come from nucleo/register_blocks and surface in catalog-get, so an agent can tell the two registries apart without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete downstream usage (source "component" in nc/collection, action "component" in nc/native-form) and routes block discovery to catalog-get instead. The write path is also named (nucleo component new data-source|action|block). It stops short of stating explicit prerequisites or when a call is unnecessary, but the context is clear.

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