library_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It signals a read-style operation with 'Return' and discloses three output categories (paths, counts, recent detected patterns), which is useful. However, it does not clarify side effects, staleness, or what 'detected patterns' means at runtime.

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 sentence with no filler or repeated information. It front-loads the verb and immediately names the key data categories, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 interface and the presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context about what the call returns. It is slightly incomplete in not guiding the agent on when to prefer this tool over nearby siblings, but the low complexity keeps the gap minor.

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 and schema coverage is effectively complete, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The no-parameter baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not mislead about inputs.

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 ('Return') and identifies a concrete resource ('persistent tool-library paths, counts, and recent detected patterns'), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as list_library_tools or pipeline_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_library_tools, search_tool_library, or pipeline_status. No context, exclusions, or selection criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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