Foo Guard Library

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: returned content is untrusted reference data, the response includes SHA-256, scan grade, and license information, and installation/execution requires explicit human approval. This adds significant safety and trust context not present in the 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 core action and scope, followed by key return and safety information. Every sentence adds useful information without waste.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately lists the returned fields: metadata, content, SHA-256, scan grade, and license. Combined with the trust warning and approval requirement, it gives an agent enough context to call the tool correctly and handle the result safely.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does so by identifying the item via required slug and explaining that version is an optional semver that defaults to latest when omitted. It does not explain the slug pattern, but the core semantics of both parameters are covered.

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 and resource: 'Read one public Library item by slug'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search_library tool, which presumably lists or searches multiple items.

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 explains that the version is optional and defaults to latest when omitted, and it adds a clear safety condition: do not install or run without explicit human approval. It does not explicitly compare with search_library, but the 'one item by slug' context makes the intended use clear.

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 readOnly, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: results are metadata only with no file contents, and include SHA-256 fingerprints and scan grades. It does not mention pagination or how result ordering works, but the key behavioral expectation is set.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the search scope is front-loaded and the return-shape caveat follows immediately.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return payload (metadata, fingerprints, grades), which is the right call. However, given 0% schema coverage on four parameters, an agent gets no guidance on how query, limit, or collection shape results — a notable gap for a search tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for four parameters, yet it only gestures at 'kind' via 'skills and configs'. The query text, limit cap of 25, and the collection enum are never explained in the 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (free, public Foo Guard Library skills and configs), so an agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_library_item, leaving that distinction to be inferred from the verb.

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 browsing/searching the public catalog when you don't already have a specific item, and 'free, public' scopes the corpus. It never names get_library_item as the alternative for retrieving a known item, nor states 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.