list_components

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that results are sorted descending and that include_groups=true also lists groups, but it does not detail return format or pagination. This level of added context is modest.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core action and output format. The use case and parameter note follow efficiently, with no wasted words.

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 simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output ordering, use case, and the include_groups behavior. Annotations already handle the safety profile, so remaining gaps are minor.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single optional parameter, the description compensates by explaining that 'include_groups=true also lists groups.' This makes the parameter's effect clear, though it could also state the default (false).

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 specific verb and resource: 'List component definitions and their instance counts (sorted descending).' It further clarifies the output is sorted and provides a use case ('count equipment/furniture'), which separates it from sibling listing tools like list_tags or list_materials.

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 gives a clear usage context: 'use it to count equipment/furniture.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of the top score.

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