list_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list and suggests it as a starting point for unknown components, but provides no details on default behavior (e.g., returns all components when no filter is given), sorting, pagination, or authentication requirements. This is adequate for a simple read-only list tool but not rich.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose followed by a concise usage tip. Every sentence earns its place, with no superfluous content.

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), the description is sufficient: it communicates what the tool returns and when to use it. It could mention that the list includes all components when no filter is applied, but this is a minor gap given the schema already documents the filter.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter 'filter' with a clear description of filtering by component name or description keyword. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 returns the list of components defined in the Levit design system ('Levit 디자인 시스템에 정의된 컴포넌트 목록을 반환합니다'). It also provides a distinguishing use case ('특정 컴포넌트 이름을 모를 때 먼저 사용하세요'), which separates it from sibling tools like search or get_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?

It explicitly says to use this tool first when you don't know a specific component name, giving a clear 'when to use' signal. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest standard.

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