list_private_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that output is names only and that private entries by design have no repo URL or description, preventing false expectations. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but for a zero-parameter listing the key behavior is disclosed.

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 short sentences with the essential scope front-loaded. The second sentence adds useful context about why repo and description are absent, with no redundancy or wasted words.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description explains the return scope and the reason repo/description are missing. It is slightly thin on explicitly routing to list_public_components or list_components, but the sibling names and the 'private' qualifier provide enough context.

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 properties and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately adds no parameter information.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('private components'), and immediately scopes the output to 'names only — no repo, no description claims'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_public_components and list_components.

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 conveys the context: use this when you need private components and only their names, and it explains why repo/description fields are absent. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so routing to a sibling is implied rather than explicit.

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