List Ballmac UI items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful domain context (what a component/block/template is and that categories span primitives, motion, hero, pricing, marketing) but says nothing about result size, ordering, or pagination.

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?

One front-loaded sentence carries the purpose and filters, followed by a short pointer to list_categories. The parenthetical for category is dense but earns its space; nothing is redundant.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the zero-required-parameter filtering surface plus the valid-name lookup path. Only ordering/pagination behavior is left unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description carries the load, and it does: it explains what each kind value means and spells out the three flavors of the free-form 'category' string, which the schema leaves entirely undescribed. The tier enum values are not explained, but free/pro is self-evident.

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 concrete verb and resource ('List components, blocks or templates') and immediately scopes the optional filters. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g., search_items), so it is clear but not differentiated from related listing tools.

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 gives clear usage context: filtering is optional and can be driven by kind, category, or tier, and it directs the agent to list_categories for valid names, establishing a dependency ordering. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over search_items or get_item.

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