list-components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool '仅返回可用的组件列表' (returns only the available component list), which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns structured data. The second sentence about editing files adds confusion as it describes post-call actions, not the tool's behavior itself, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, but the second sentence ('调用此工具后，你必须编辑或添加文件...') is somewhat redundant and adds unnecessary detail about post-call actions, diluting focus. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose, but could be more concise by omitting the implementation guidance, which doesn't directly help tool selection.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and usage context well, but lacks details on return values (e.g., list format) and behavioral aspects like error handling. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps in transparency and output expectations.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is appropriate given the lack of parameters. A baseline score of 4 is applied as per rules for 0 parameters, as it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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: '仅返回可用的组件列表' (returns only the available component list). It specifies the resource (Ant Design components) and distinguishes it from siblings like get-component-docs or list-component-examples by focusing on listing rather than documentation or examples. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the verb 'list' in the first sentence, slightly reducing specificity.

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 explicit usage guidelines: '当用户请求一个新的用户界面（UI）使用 Ant Design 组件时使用此工具' (use this tool when the user requests a new UI using Ant Design components). It implies an alternative workflow (editing/adding files after calling) and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on initial listing rather than detailed docs or examples, though it doesn't name alternatives directly.

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