engineerpro-library

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive nature. The description adds the key behavioral nuance that the structured profile is included conditionally, only 'when a sidecar exists,' which is useful beyond what annotations provide.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the action, the target, and the conditional behavior without waste. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple get-by-id tool with a rich output schema, annotations, and a well-described parameter, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is not stating what happens when no sidecar exists, though the conditional phrasing and output schema likely cover it.

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 coverage is 100% and the libraryId parameter already has a clear description. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('one library row plus its structured profile'), and names the profile components. The 'one' qualifier clearly distinguishes this get-by-id tool from the list and search siblings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: the description implies this is for retrieving a single known book's profile, and the parameter schema mentions ids come from list_library_books or search_library. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_library or list_library_books.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description agrees by describing a read-only listing operation. The description adds modest context by specifying the 118-book slice and mentioning lane tags and profile availability, but it does not disclose other behavior such as ordering or pagination. Given the annotations and simple nature of the tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and output features with no filler. It is concise while still providing the essential scope information an agent needs.

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?

For a simple list tool with two optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description plus annotations are nearly sufficient. The only minor gap is that 'profile availability' is not expanded, but this is likely clarified by the output schema, so nothing essential to invoking the tool is missing.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, describing both the lane and limit parameters fully. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level detail beyond hinting at lane tags, but with complete schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clearly defined resource, the 'EngineerPro 118-book engineering library slice', and names the included fields (lane tags, profile availability). This distinguishes it from get_library_book, which fetches a single book, and search_library, which searches, so an agent can identify the intended operation.

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 does not say when to use this tool versus search_library or get_library_book. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions. The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'List' and the slice name, leaving the agent to infer tool selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'REST path hints' behavioral detail and the catalog nature, but does not describe output contents, pagination, or any notable operational constraints. It is consistent with annotations and adds moderate value.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose in a compact form.

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 zero-parameter input and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for invocation. The only notable gap is lack of usage guidance relative to siblings, but the simple nature of the tool keeps this from being a major deficiency.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter burden to carry. With an empty input schema and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 4 applies; no param semantics are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Catalog') and names the resource ('interactive SE tools'), and adds a concrete detail about REST path hints. This is clear enough to distinguish it from the library-focused sibling tools, though 'interactive SE tools' is slightly vague.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The agent must infer from the name 'list_tools' that it catalogs available tools rather than library resources. No explicit when-to-use or alternative-selection guidance is present.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substring semantics, which is useful, but it does not disclose behavior like case sensitivity, ordering, or how matches are ranked.

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?

A single sentence immediately conveys the operation and scope with no unnecessary detail. It is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

For a simple, read-only, two-parameter search tool with a full input schema and output schema, the description is sufficient. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents both parameters. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that q searches across title, author, lane tags, and classifier tags, which goes beyond the generic 'Search query' schema description.

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 states a specific verb ('search'), resource ('the engineering library'), and the exact fields being searched. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools like get_library_book or list_library_books.

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 this tool is for substring-based lookup, but it does not explicitly explain when to use it versus list_library_books or get_library_book. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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