List Parameter Components

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds useful context beyond it: the project-context prerequisite is a genuine behavioral requirement not visible in annotations or schema. However, the description does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or what version is used when versionId is null. It adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 with zero filler: the first states the core purpose and scope, the second adds the optional-flag behavior and the prerequisite. The most load-bearing information is front-loaded ahead of the usage note. Every word earns its place.

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 three-parameter list tool with readOnlyHint=true, the description covers purpose, the optional flag's purpose, and the project-context prerequisite. However, with no output schema present, the description does not explain the return shape or pagination, and it does not clarify the behavior when versionId is omitted (which version is listed). These are meaningful gaps for an agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description's note about includeUsageCounts essentially restates the schema's param description ('Also return how often each component is referenced') without adding syntax, format, or interaction details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (List), a specific resource (reusable parameter components), and scope (of a spec version). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_header_components, list_request_body_components, and list_response_components by naming the component type explicitly. An agent can route to the right tool without opening any schema.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires project context') and explains when to set includeUsageCounts ('to see how often each one is referenced'). However, it does not explicitly address when to prefer this tool over get_parameter_component or the sibling list_*_components tools, and it offers no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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