list_components

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only discovery operation and the description usefully previews the shape of each returned record (props, emits, slots), but it says nothing about scope (whole project vs. layers), result volume, or ordering for a project that could have hundreds of components.

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, zero filler, with the purpose and returned fields front-loaded and the usage guidance second. Every clause 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must cover both the operation and the return shape, and it does list the returned fields explicitly. The main remaining gap is the lack of any note on scale or read-only safety for a project-wide enumeration tool, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% and both parameters are optional with clear descriptions, so the schema already does the semantic work. The description adds nothing about how name and directory filters combine, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List all Vue components') and enumerates exactly what each entry contains: auto-imported names, file paths, props, emits and slots. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling inspect_component, which an agent may reasonably confuse with it.

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?

It states a concrete usage context: 'discover existing UI building blocks before writing new code,' which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It stops short of naming alternatives (inspect_component for a single component, list_composables for composables) or noting that filters can narrow the listing, so the routing 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.