list_composables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden: it implies a read-only listing and discloses the returned fields (name, file path, parameters, return type), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. It says nothing about scope (whole project vs open files), cost, pagination, or whether results are cached, so real gaps remain.

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?

Three short sentences: what it lists, what it returns, and when to reach for it — all front-loaded with zero filler. Nothing repeats structured fields verbatim beyond the useful return-field summary.

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 one-parameter read-only listing with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and usage well enough to call correctly. Minor omissions are scope and result-size behavior, which an agent might want before invoking on a large codebase.

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?

The single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) as a 'substring filter on composable name'. The description adds nothing about it, which is acceptable when the schema does the work, though it could have noted that omitting it lists everything.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('List all composables') and scopes it ('both auto-imported and explicit'), which is enough to separate it from siblings like list_components or get_auto_imports. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

'Use this to discover reusable logic before writing new code' gives a clear triggering situation for the agent. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. when to prefer get_auto_imports or search_code), so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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