sw_list_components

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a little context by scoping results to 'top-level' components and mentioning position and state, but says nothing about return structure, ordering, or behavior with a missing/inactive document.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but it is an under-specified noun phrase rather than a complete sentence with a verb. Brevity here reflects minimal content rather than disciplined editing.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should convey what the returned component entries look like and how 'state' is represented. It gestures at 'position and state' but leaves the return shape largely undefined, which is a meaningful gap for an agent consuming the output.

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?

There is only one optional parameter, and the schema documents it fully ('Document title or path. Defaults to the active document.'). With 100% schema description coverage, the schema carries the burden, so a baseline 3 is appropriate even though the description adds no parameter detail.

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 phrase 'Top-level components with position and state' identifies the resource and scope but never states a verb like 'list', leaving the action implied by the tool name. It also makes no attempt to distinguish this from siblings such as sw_list_features, sw_list_bodies, or sw_list_configurations, which all share the same list-shape.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternative applies. Sibling tools like sw_list_features and sw_list_entities could plausibly overlap, and the description offers no routing guidance.

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