gh_component_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and 'List' is consistent with those. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the operation is scoped to the active canvas and can be narrowed by a filter. No side effects or hidden behaviors are suggested.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence that states the operation, the scope, and the optional parameter. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy.

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 list operation with an output schema present, the description covers the core needs: what is listed, where, and the availability of filtering. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the output schema handles return-value details. Nothing critical is missing.

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 description mentions 'optionally filtered' but does not explain what the filter operates on. While the input schema's 'filter' property does contain a description ('Substring to filter component nicknames by.'), at the top level the args parameter has no description and the context signal reports 0% schema description coverage. The description adds only minimal value over the nested schema text.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('components on the active canvas'), immediately distinguishing this from siblings like gh_components_search (library search) or rhino_list_objects (Rhino document objects). The optional-filter note adds specificity without ambiguity.

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 phrase 'currently on the active canvas' clearly establishes the context in which this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the scope alone is strong enough guidance for an agent.

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