list_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function without revealing traits such as read-only behavior, return format, pagination, or error handling. The word 'List' implies safety but does not explicitly confirm it, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation-driven visibility.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose and optional filter. There is no wasted wording or redundant elaboration, making it highly concise and appropriately 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain return values or additional context, but it does not. It also omits details like whether the list is paginated, sorted, or includes metadata. Despite the tool's simplicity, the missing return/error information leaves it incomplete.

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 coverage for the single 'category' parameter is 100%, and the parameter description already explains it with examples. The tool description only restates that filtering is optional, adding no new semantics like matching behavior or invalid-category handling, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 the tool lists all available Aceternity UI components, with an optional category filter. The verb 'List' and resource 'Aceternity UI components' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like get_component (single item) and search_components (query-based) by indicating 'all' 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 implies usage for browsing all components or filtering by category, which provides a clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings like get_component or search_components, so it misses explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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