list_library

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that each paper line includes its item key in [KEY] brackets and that this key is used in other tools — a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention pagination, sorting, exact output scope, or whether the list includes collections only as names.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and the second sentence provides crucially useful downstream context about item keys. No wasted words.

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 has an output schema (not shown) and a small sibling set, the description is largely complete: it covers the main list functionality, optional filters, and the connection to paper_details/paper_text via the item key. It lacks a few edge details like default sort order, but is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 only defines a nullable string 'query' with 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that the parameter filters by collection name, paper title, or author, but is vague about the exact format — whether it's a single free-text search or separate fields. It adds some meaning but not enough for precise invocation.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('collections and papers in the Zotero library'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings: paper_details and paper_text focus on individual items, while search_papers implies searching rather than listing all.

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?

It says the list can be optionally filtered by collection name, paper title, or author, which indicates a browsing/listing use case. It also points to paper_details and paper_text for downstream access, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus search_papers.

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