list_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return format (detailed vs. concise), pagination behavior (truncated flag, offset increment), and recursion depth limits. This is comprehensive for a read-only list operation.

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 concise (three short paragraphs) and well-structured: purpose, object format, parameters, return value with pagination instructions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity (5 parameters, pagination, two response formats), the description covers all necessary aspects: what is returned, how recursion works, and how to paginate. The presence of an output schema is acknowledged but the description still fully explains the return structure.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already described. The description adds significant value by explaining the meaning of response_format (detailed includes bbox_mm, concise omits it) and the interaction between recursive and max_depth. This goes beyond the schema.

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 begins with a clear verb+resource: 'List groups and component instances in the model (paginated)'. It immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like find_components (search) and get_component_info (single component), as it is a paginated listing tool.

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 clear guidance on using pagination and recursion (e.g., 'Set recursive=true to descend into nested components... bounded by max_depth, default 3' and instructions for pagination via offset increment). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like find_components, which would improve the score.

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