List Header Components

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by explaining that it returns ids and rowVersions, and clarifies level-specific behavior for includeUsageCounts. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adding prerequisites and return value. Every sentence contributes, with no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description explains what is returned (ids and rowVersions) and the key conditions (level, project context). It lacks explicit pagination or error details, but for a list tool with annotations covering safety, this is sufficiently 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 all parameters have descriptions. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining that specId is required for 'spec' level and that includeUsageCounts only applies at the spec level, clarifying the interplay between parameters.

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 lists header components at either 'spec' or 'project' level, with specific prerequisites for each. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_header_component or list_header_exclusions by describing its scope and return value (ids and rowVersions).

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 usage context: requires project context, and notes that includeUsageCounts and versionId are spec-level only. It implies when to use this tool (to get components for policies) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. This is better than no guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.

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