List Request Body Components

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: optional usage counts ('showing how many endpoints link each component') and the project-context requirement. These go beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 focused sentences: the first states the core behavior, the second adds optional behavior and a key prerequisite. There is no fluff, redundant phrasing, or wasted words. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 full schema coverage for parameters and a readOnly annotation, the description is sufficiently complete for a list tool. It names the resource, optional usage counts, and the project-context requirement. No output schema exists, so missing return-value details are not a significant gap.

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 parameters. The description adds only a natural-language restatement of includeUsageCounts ('showing how many endpoints link each component'), which does not meaningfully exceed the schema's own description. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a precise resource: 'reusable request body components (OpenAPI components/requestBodies) of an API specification.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling component-list tools like list_header_components and list_response_components.

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 implies when to use the tool—when listing reusable request body components—and adds a prerequisite ('Requires project context'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the name.

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