List Response Components

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true is consistent with the 'list' action. The description adds no extra behavioral detail (e.g., pagination, sorting), but given the annotation coverage, the baseline is acceptable.

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?

The description is concise, two sentences, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds the optional parameter behavior.

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?

The tool is simple and has no output schema. The description covers the essential purpose and parameter behavior. It lacks details about response format or pagination, but these are not critical for such a straightforward list operation.

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% and each parameter has a clear description (e.g., specId as 'Public ID (GUID)', versionId as 'Optional version ID...', includeUsageCounts as 'Also return how often...'). The descriptions add practical meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('reusable response components'), and the scope ('of a spec version'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_header_components and list_request_body_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 provides a hint about the includeUsageCounts parameter but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_shared_responses or list_shared_schemas. The purpose is clear but the usage context is implicit.

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