list_components

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return field list and the workflow with describe_component, but no additional behavioral traits such as pagination or ordering. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences carry all the essential information: the search purpose, the exact return fields, and the usage workflow. No redundancy or filler; the most important detail (what it returns) comes first.

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 read-only listing tool with an optional query parameter and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains how to invoke it (with or without query) and how it connects to describe_component. Minor gaps like pagination are not critical given the output schema and annotations.

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% and the single parameter query is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 searches the component catalogue and enumerates the returned fields (id, alias, name, summary, ports, key parameters, fidelity, tags). It also distinguishes itself from describe_component by framing it as the list/search step followed by describe_component for details, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 gives an explicit workflow: call without a query to list everything, then use describe_component for the components you need. That tells the agent when to use this tool versus its sibling. It could go further by stating when not to use it (e.g., when you already know a component ID and need full details), but the implied guidance is strong.

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