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 explains the return format (id, name, type, layer, depth, bbox_mm) and recursion behavior, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, permissions needed, or performance implications.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a return format list. It front-loads the primary verb and resource, with no redundant or unnecessary text.

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 simplicity and the existence of an output schema (implied by the return format listed), the description covers all essential aspects: what is listed, recursion parameters, and return structure. Minor omissions like handling of hidden components do not detract significantly.

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% coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions. The tool description fully compensates by explaining 'recursive' for descending into nested components and 'max_depth' for bounding recursion with default and range values.

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 explicitly states 'List groups and component instances in the model' with a specific verb and resource. It details the return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_components or create_component.

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 use for listing top-level components by default, with optional recursion. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like find_components or get_component_info, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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