suwayomi_get_library

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but it is never explicitly stated that this tool does not modify data or have side effects. The description also does not mention pagination, error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The only behavioral detail given is the default limit of 50, which is a parameter, not a behavior. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise: one purpose sentence followed by a compact Args list. Every line earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter details are formatted for easy scanning. This is exemplary efficiency.

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 fetch operation with three parameters, the description covers all the input semantics clearly. The output schema is present, so return values are handled externally. However, it does not mention potential edge cases like empty results, total count, or pagination beyond the limit parameter. Given the simplicity and the presence of an output schema, this is adequate, though a note about result ordering or default behavior when search is null would enhance completeness.

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 fully explain the parameters. It does so effectively: each parameter (in_library_only, search, limit) is described with its meaning and examples (e.g., 'isekai', 'Latna', 'action' for search). It also clarifies the default for limit and the filtering behavior of in_library_only. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it could go further by specifying search matching semantics (e.g., exact match vs. substring) or limit bounds.

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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Fetch your manga/manhwa library state from Suwayumi.' This identifies the exact action (fetch) and resource (library state), distinguishing it from siblings like suwayumi_download_chapters and suwayumi_search_and_add, which perform different operations. The 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?

The description implies usage by describing what the tool does, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the siblings. It lacks guidance on when to use this versus suwayumi_search_and_add (e.g., to view existing library) or the download tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so the agent must infer context from the tool name and description.

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