get_library_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'useful for understanding available metadata fields,' which implies a read-only, informational operation, but doesn't explicitly state behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds practical context without redundancy. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information efficiently, with zero waste.

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's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and its utility, but without annotations or output schema, it should ideally cover more behavioral aspects (e.g., return format, error handling). The description is adequate for basic understanding but could be more comprehensive for a tool that might return complex schema data.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't mention any parameters. Since schema_description_coverage is low (<50%), the description should compensate but doesn't add any parameter information. However, with 0 parameters effectively (since 'library_name' has a default of null and is not required), the baseline is 4, but the description doesn't clarify the optionality or purpose of 'library_name', so it's scored lower at 3 for missing this nuance.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get the schema of the library, including standard and custom columns.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('schema of the library') with additional detail about content ('standard and custom columns'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get_field_values' or 'search_books', which might also involve library metadata.

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 provides implied usage guidance: 'Useful for understanding available metadata fields for search and update.' This suggests when to use it (to understand metadata for search/update operations) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of 'get_field_values' for schema information.

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