Get Library Documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields and hints that max_records is a client-side limit via schema, but does not mention authorization, rate limits, or whether all documents are always returned regardless of user permissions. This is acceptable for a simple read operation but not rich detail.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, optionality, and outputs with no redundant words or repetition of schema content. Every phrase 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?

The description adequately covers purpose, optional filter, and return fields, which is sufficient for a simple list tool without an output schema. It lacks information about potential errors or authorization, but given the simplicity and 0 required params, it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described in detail (max_records limit behavior, category_slug purpose and link to get_library_categories). The tool description adds only marginal reinforcement of these facts, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get documents from the HR Partner document library') and clearly identifies the scope (policies, handbooks). It also lists the return values (description, download URL, size, timestamps), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_library_categories.

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 when to use it (for library documents) and mentions its optional category filter, pointing to get_library_categories for slugs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving a small gap in usage guidance.

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