xae_library_list

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

Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile, yet the description still adds real behavioral detail: it flags duplicate references, uninstalled versions and drift from the saved .plcproj, and explicitly discloses a blind spot ('an unsaved resolve / freeze cannot be seen') plus the ScanLibraries side effect behind check_installed. Cost/performance or output shape are not discussed, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Every clause carries information and the purpose is stated first, but the text is a run-on of parentheticals and em-dashes that is harder to parse than it needs to be. No sentence is wasted, though readability could be improved with separation into discrete points.

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?

Both optional parameters are semantically covered, the scanning behavior is explained, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. What remains missing is routing guidance relative to the many library-related siblings, which matters given how crowded that namespace is.

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 carry the load, and it does: plc_project_path is explained as accepting plc_path, iec_project_path or instance_path, and check_installed=false is described as skipping the installed-version check. Types and defaults still come only from the schema, so it stops short of full compensation.

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 names a specific resource and scope: library references "as XAE holds them now (TE1000 ITcPlcLibraryManager)", covering both libraries (name, version, distributor) and placeholders with default/effective resolution. The 'live vs saved .plcproj' framing implicitly separates it from file-based tools, but no sibling is named outright, so differentiation must be inferred.

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?

Usage conditions are given only indirectly: plc_project_path is 'needed when the solution has more than one PLC project' and check_installed=false skips the installed-version scan. There is no statement of when to prefer this over xae_library_installed, proj_libraries or xae_library_repositories, leaving the choice to the agent.

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