List a group’s components

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns full membership (not a sample), includes name/title/description per item, and notes that get_component holds detailed data. This goes beyond annotation declarations without overclaiming.

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 three sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds distinct value—usage guidance and output summary—without fluff or repetition.

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 tool's simplicity (one required param, two total), the description covers what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. The output schema and parameter descriptions fill remaining gaps, so the overall context is complete.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema (group slug and dependencyFree filter). The description does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema's own explanations, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 enumerates every component in a group, specifying 'full membership, not a ranked sample.' It also distinguishes itself from search_components by explicitly contrasting with search's top-k results, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives: 'Search always returns its top k, so "list ALL X" and "does the registry have X?" need this instead.' It also points to get_component for details, giving clear usage context.

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