list_design_system_components

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

The annotations already convey that this is read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds the useful detail that the result includes provenance, but it provides no additional operational information such as ordering, pagination, or absence of filtering; the behavior section is adequate but not enriched.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'List,' contains no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to scope and result semantics, making the description quick and inexpensive for an agent to parse.

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 a simple read-only list operation with one optional constant-valued parameter and no output schema. The description names what is returned, the scope, and the existence of the parameter default via the schema. There are no missing practical details that would prevent an agent from invoking the tool correctly.

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 schema has 100% description coverage: the only parameter, baseline, is already documented with its constant value raven-canonical and its default behavior. The description mainly repeats the canonical-baseline idea without introducing new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already gives.

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 the specific verb 'List' with a concrete resource, 'components and provenance', and narrows the context to the 'Raven canonical baseline.' This is enough for an agent to distinguish the tool from sibling tools that list design systems or inspect individual design-system elements.

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 intended usage is implied: call this tool to discover the components and provenance in the canonical Raven baseline. However, the description never explicitly contrasts it with the many related design-system tools, such as get_design_system, list_design_systems, or inventory_design_system, so the agent receives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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