list_components

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating safe operations. The description adds that limit is capped at 50 and pagination is possible, which is behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 a single sentence, efficiently conveying the primary purpose and two optional behaviors. It is concise with no fluff, though it could be more explicit about the two modes of operation.

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 the output schema exists, return formats are covered. The description is sufficient for a read-only listing tool with 6 parameters, but could better explain the difference between 'reference' mode vs 'prefix' mode and when to use each.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well documented. The description adds little: it mentions 'type prefix' and 'single component value by reference' which clarifies the 'prefix' and 'reference' fields slightly, but mostly redundant with 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 lists components in a circuit file, with optional filtering by prefix or returning a single component by reference. It distinguishes from siblings like component_info (which presumably provides details on a known component) and set_component_value (mutation), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage for listing or reading components, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs component_info or other query tools. It mentions optional filtering and single lookup, which hints at usage scenarios, but lacks clear guidance on when to prefer this tool.

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