list_library_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description never explicitly says so and does not disclose default filtering, pagination, or ordering behavior. It only mentions possible statuses, which is parameter-level context rather than tool behavior.

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 the action and resource first, followed by the key parameter values. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits default behavior and does not differentiate this tool from the sibling search_tool_library, which weakens correct selection and invocation. A sentence explaining the default status and pointing to the search alternative would complete 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by listing valid statuses: active, draft, disabled, archived. However, it does not define the meaning of the default empty string (whether it means all statuses or only active) or whether multiple statuses can be passed.

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: 'List persistent reusable tools'. It also names the status dimension, giving a clear sense of scope. It does not explicitly contrast with search_tool_library, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance. The description does not say when to call this tool instead of search_tool_library or read_library_tool, and it does not clarify what the empty status default means. The status sentence implies a filter but provides no selection conditions.

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