find_components

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses recursion with max_depth bound, which is beyond schema. However, it does not mention response structure or pagination, though output schema exists.

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 concise sentences front-loading purpose and key behavior. No extraneous information.

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 output schema and parameter explanations, the description covers essential behavior (filters, recursion, depth limit, filter requirement). Minor gaps like substring clarification are acceptable.

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, the description adds meaning by explaining that 'name' is a substring match and 'max_depth' bounds recursion. It does not list enum values for 'type', but the schema provides them.

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 verb 'find' and the resource 'components' with filtering by name substring, layer, and type. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_components' by specifying recursive search and filters.

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?

It provides the guideline 'At least one filter should be supplied' but does not explicitly compare to siblings like 'list_components' or state when not to use this tool. Usage is implied but not fully differentiated.

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