Tema bileşenlerini listele

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it reads from disk (implying file system access), and explains the difference between summary and full detail levels, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses two sentences to convey the main function and the key usage tip, with no wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains the two detail levels and the validation use case. The lack of output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, and the annotations cover safety. A small gap is not mentioning pagination or performance, but that's not critical for a listing tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context about the default behavior (summary, or full if component is given) and the purpose of the full detail (field names, defaultProps, variants), which adds some value beyond the schema but doesn't significantly expand parameter semantics.

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 reads section and element components from the theme repository, with a specific verb ('reads from disk') and resource ('theme repo components'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on component listing rather than pages or site context.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool, especially the instruction to validate field names with full detail before writing sections. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tools are distinct enough that this is not a major gap.

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