list_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden retreating at least says results are 'grouped' and 'Metadata only,' which are useful behavioral clues. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, response shape, or error scenarios, so transparency is only partial.

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 sentence that includes the action, resource, grouping example, and a useful metadata-only caveat. There is no fluff, and the most distinguishing information appears first.

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?

This tool has four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description provides only a high-level statement. Missing details include what metadata fields are returned, how filters combine, how pagination behaves, and what categories are valid, making the definition insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 0% description coverage, and the description only provides a naming example rather than explaining the parameters. It does not clarify what `query`, `category`, `limit`, or `offset` control, leaving the agent to guess at filtering and pagination 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 names a specific action ('List'), a precise resource ('UI components from Storybook'), and a grouping format with concrete examples ('Components/Button, Components/Alert'). It also narrows scope to 'Metadata only,' which distinguishes this from content-returning sibling 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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer list_components over list_stories, search_stories, or get_component. The agent must infer usage from the resource name alone, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing conditions.

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