List Shared Component Usages

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds meaningful behavior: results include whether a newer library version exists (hasUpdate), and returned ids are intended for later unlink/accept_update operations. It also discloses the project-context requirement. A full return-shape description is absent, but the read-only nature lowers the burden.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the hasUpdate detail adds behavioral value, and the note about manage_shared_component_link is essential downstream context. Every sentence 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 simple two-parameter read-only list operation, the description conveys the main output value (hasUpdate), the downstream consumer of returned ids, and the required context. Without an output schema, a bit more return-shape detail could help, but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and call 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 both specId and versionId are already documented in the schema. The description only indirectly references these via 'a spec links' and 'pinned to' without adding new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 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 specifies a clear verb+resource: 'List which shared-library components a spec links'. It also includes a distinguishing detail (hasUpdate) and notes the returned usage ids are inputs for manage_shared_component_link, setting it apart from sibling list_shared_* tools like list_shared_schemas or list_shared_responses.

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 it: when you need to see a spec's shared-library component links or need usage ids for unlink/accept_update via manage_shared_component_link. It also notes 'Requires project context', which is a useful prerequisite. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clearly conveyed.

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