List My Ui components

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does so by disclosing that results are summaries rather than source, listing the returned metadata fields, and routing the agent to other tools for full source. It does not mention pagination behavior or how the 8,157 marketplace records are paged, but the core behavioral limitation is clearly surfaced.

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 two efficient sentences with no waste. It front-loads the scope and returned fields, then adds filters and the critical summaries-only caveat in a logical order.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned metadata fields and clarifying that results are summaries only. Combined with annotations covering safety and the schema covering filter syntax, an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters, including the enum meaning for catalogue mode and the limit default. The description adds a high-level filter summary but little parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries 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 states a specific verb and resource: listing UI components, with precise scope covering verified local components and all 8,157 marketplace catalogue records. It also differentiates from siblings by explaining that results are summaries and that get_component_bundle or get_component_details must be called for source code, so an agent can tell these apart without opening schemas.

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 filter by category, query or kind, and names the alternative tools to use when copy-ready source is needed. The condition for switching tools is clear: get_component_bundle or get_component_details should be called before writing code. No relevant when-to-use guidance is missing.

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