list-component-examples

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool does, it doesn't describe important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the examples come in (e.g., code snippets, full implementations), whether there are rate limits, or what happens if the component doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized with three bullet points that efficiently cover usage scenarios. It's front-loaded with the core purpose statement. While the bullet points could be slightly more concise, there's minimal wasted text and the structure helps with readability.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate purpose and usage context but lacks important details about parameters, return values, and behavioral characteristics. It's complete enough to understand when to use the tool but insufficient for reliable invocation without additional assumptions.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't mention the 'componentName' parameter at all. While the description implies a component name is needed ('特定组件'), it doesn't explain what format this should be in, whether it's case-sensitive, or provide any examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the parameter documentation 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 the tool's purpose as '获取 Ant Design 特定组件的代码示例' (Get code examples for specific Ant Design components), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-component-docs' or 'list-components', which likely serve related but different purposes.

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 provides three explicit usage scenarios in Chinese: when users ask for component examples, when users want to implement functionality with examples, and when generating pages needing component code. This gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or explicitly name alternatives among the sibling tools.

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