Corpus Library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the result is metadata only rather than document content, but says nothing about read-only safety, pagination behavior, or how the default limit of 50 affects browsing.

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, zero filler, with the core capability and the key alternative front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all three optional parameters are documented in the schema. The description covers the essential purpose and the content-vs-metadata distinction; only richer browsing semantics (pagination, filtering) are missing, which is minor for this 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 100%, so limit, series, and extended are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about these parameters (e.g. how series matching works), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Browse the corpus library') and clarifies scope with '(metadata list)', which separates it from content-fetching siblings. It explicitly distinguishes itself from corpus_get_doc, though it does not differentiate from closer siblings like corpus_list_series or corpus_list_doc_types.

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 line 'For content use corpus_get_doc' gives one clear routing condition away from this tool. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this over the other list-style siblings (corpus_list_series, corpus_list_doc_types, corpus_search), so usage is only implied.

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