list_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool lists components and can filter by category. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, the size of the return set, or any other behavioral details like rate limits or side effects.

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 a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's core function.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides enough context for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose. However, it could briefly mention that it returns a list of component names or objects, but this is not critical.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameter (category) with a full description and enum. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the score is at the baseline of 3.

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 tool's purpose: listing all available shadcn/ui components with optional category filtering. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('shadcn/ui components'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_component_demo or install_component.

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 usage context (listing components before installing or getting details), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Sibling tools like get_component_demo are distinct, but no guidance is given.

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