penpot_list_components

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details the returned fields (componentId, name, mainInstanceId/mainInstancePage, variantId/variantProperties) and the effect of includeLibraries (adds libraryFileId). However, it does not mention error handling, performance, or read-only nature explicitly, though it is implied.

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 paragraph but highly efficient. It front-loads the core purpose, uses bullet points within text for clarity, and every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description provides a solid understanding of input/output and integration with sibling tools. However, it lacks information on error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., file existence), and pagination limits. Overall, it is complete enough for an AI agent, with minor gaps.

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 has 2 parameters with 50% description coverage. The description adds value by explaining fileId's role (identifies the file) and expanding on includeLibraries: it specifies the output includes libraryFileId and libraryFileName, and how to use them with penpot_add_component_instance. This goes beyond the minimal schema description.

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 that the tool lists a file's existing components, explicitly contrasting it with alternative approaches like creating components manually or parsing snapshot data. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like penpot_get_file_snapshot by emphasizing the ease of use.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'instead of requiring the caller to have created them itself in the same session or parse penpot_get_file_snapshot's data.components by hand.' It also provides guidance on the includeLibraries parameter, explaining when to set it true and the resulting behavior.

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