List components

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, and the description goes further by disclosing the payload shape: description, group, requirements, and whether the component is installed in this app. That return-content detail is genuinely additive given there is no output schema, though ordering, pagination, and result size remain unspecified.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the resource statement comes first and the filtering note second. The parenthetical 'group (Forms…)' is a slightly awkward shorthand but still earns its place by illustrating the grouping.

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?

With one optional parameter and no output schema, the description carries its share by explaining the returned fields and the filter's scope. Missing details about ordering and whether the full catalog is ever truncated keep it from being fully 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds matching semantics the schema does not: it states the query is matched against both names and descriptions, telling the agent what search surface it is querying. It stops short of describing match behavior for multi-word input.

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 names the resource (Bladewell components) and enumerates the fields each entry carries, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It is clear about what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_component or add_components, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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 sentence 'Narrow it with query' explains how the filter works but not when to reach for this tool instead of get_component or project_status. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing guidance, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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