list_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation (listing), which is appropriate. However, it lacks details about pagination, ordering, or whether the list is live or cached. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 very concise (two sentences), front-loading the core purpose and a usage hint. No unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

For a tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter explanations, output format, and any constraints. The agent would need additional information to use the tool effectively, especially given the parameter complexity.

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 description does not explain any of the four parameters (directory, framework, min_usage, include_props). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema. The agent has no guidance on how to use these parameters, which is a critical gap.

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 it lists all components and specifies the summary info fields (name, path, prop count, usage count). The verb 'list' and resource 'components' are unambiguous, and the suggestion to call it first gives context, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like search_components.

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 advises to 'call this first to see what's available,' providing a general usage hint. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool (e.g., when filtering or searching is needed) or mention alternatives like search_components or get_component_details.

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