list_pending_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose non-obvious lifecycle behavior: entries that appear in Storybook are 'dropped automatically' and old entries are 'flagged stale'. That is real signal beyond the name. It still omits read-only framing and any auth/volume context, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the primary scope stated first and the automatic maintenance behavior second. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description supplies the essentials: what is listed and what happens to entries over time. It hints at the return shape (a stale flag) but says nothing about ordering or size of the list, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The absence of parameters is consistent with the description, which describes a plain listing with no filtering knobs.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and a precisely scoped resource (locally remembered components not yet in the deployed Storybook). The 'locally remembered / not yet deployed' qualifier distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like list_components and list_stories without needing their 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?

Usage is implied by the purpose — you call it when you want to see pending/local-only components — but the description never names an alternative or a when-not condition (e.g., use list_components for the full deployed catalog). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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