list_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb '列出' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no modifications are made, nor does it mention any other behaviors such as potential ordering, recursion depth, or limitations. For a simple list tool this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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, tightly worded sentence that states the core action (list all components), the format (tree structure), and the included fields (path, identifier, type, title). There is no filler or redundancy; every clause earns its place and the primary action is front-loaded.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains what the tool returns (a tree of components with specific fields) and the scope (current form). Missing are details about the exact return structure or any caveats, but these are minor for a simple listing 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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% schema description coverage). The description does not need to add parameter details since there are none, and it correctly avoids inventing any. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-parameter tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('列出' = list) and resource ('当前表单中所有组件'), and clearly states the output is a tree structure with each component showing path, identifier, type, and title. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_component_types (which lists types) and get_schema (which gets the schema), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly indicates this tool is for retrieving the current form's component tree, which is clear enough for a basic use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., when needing a hierarchy vs. a flat list, or when to use get_schema instead), nor does it mention any constraints or exclusions.

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