List OrchestrUI libraries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read-only operation. The description adds 'Returns metadata only'—a useful disclaimer that goes beyond the schema. However, it does not detail what 'metadata' includes (e.g., supported versions, installation status), but the annotations carry most of the safety burden. This is slightly better than a baseline 3 because it explicitly limits scope, yet not rich enough for 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that names the purpose, the fixed set (seven ecosystems), the optional filter, and the return type. Every word earns its place; it is front-loaded with the core action and avoids fluff.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, the scope (seven ecosystems), and that it returns metadata only. The only minor gap is that it does not explain what happens if the role filter does not match—but given the trivial complexity and rich annotations, this does not significantly impair usability.

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%, and the single optional parameter's description ('Optional role fragment such as charts or marketing-ui') is already explicit in the schema. The tool description merely mentions 'optionally filter by role' without adding new semantic detail (e.g., whether filtering is case-sensitive, partial match, or returns all if empty). Since the schema fully covers the param, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the verb ('List'), the resource ('the seven supported UI ecosystems'), and adds a key distinguishing detail ('optionally filter by role. Returns metadata only'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_library_guidance or recommend_stack by emphasizing a fixed set (seven) and metadata-only scope.

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 indicates when to use it (to list UI ecosystems) and hints at a filtering option (by role), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Sibling names suggest related tools, but the description does not explicitly route to them, so it misses the 'when-not' guidance that would earn a 5.

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