List component groups

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

Annotations already declare read-only and closed-world semantics. The description adds useful context about the output structure (taxonomy with counts) and how it relates to sibling tools, without contradicting the annotations. It slightly exceeds minimal additions by explaining the semantic content of the result.

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, no redundancy. Every clause adds value: the first describes the output, the second directs the user to related tools. The structure is clean and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The tool is simple, with no parameters and an output schema, so the description's coverage of the tool's purpose and usage is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The relationship to sibling tools is clearly articulated, covering all necessary 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?

No parameters exist; the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-param tools is 4. The description adds no param-specific info, but none is needed.

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 identifies the tool as listing the registry taxonomy with per-group component counts, and explicitly distinguishes it from list_components and search_components by explaining how the output is used. The specific resource (registry taxonomy) and scope (component count per group) are stated.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: to get a slug for filtering search_components or to identify a group to enumerate with list_components. This provides clear alternatives and usage context, going beyond mere statement of purpose.

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