html.list

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 discloses that the tool lists components and specifies the context (current drawing layer, Designer mode with selected screen), which adds useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination), leaving gaps in transparency for a tool with no annotations.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a clarifying detail. Every word earns its place by providing essential context without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 (simple list operation), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does and the context, but without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention the return format or any limitations. It meets minimum viability but lacks completeness for full transparency.

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 adds no parameter information, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates adequately for the lack of parameters by focusing on context and usage, though it doesn't exceed expectations by adding extra semantic details.

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 'list' and the resource 'HTML components in the current drawing layer', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It further distinguishes from siblings by specifying the context of 'Designer mode' and 'currently selected screen', which helps differentiate it from other list tools like nodes.list or layout.list.

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 context for when to use this tool: 'in the current drawing layer' and 'In Designer mode, lists components on currently selected screen.' This gives explicit guidance on the operational context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as html.get or html.getByName for retrieving individual components.

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