lib_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only status operation by saying 'what the library holds' and 'current configuration,' but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, whether it is expensive, or any access requirements. This is minimal but not misleading.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the tool's scope.

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 zero-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description identifies the two key aspects (holdings and configuration). It could add more context about what 'local library' means or what configuration details are included, but the presence of an output schema and absence of parameters keep it mostly 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?

The tool has no parameters, so the description cannot add parameter meaning. The empty schema is fully covered, and the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 the resource ('local library') and the two things the tool reports: holdings and current configuration. It is not a tautology and is more specific than a generic 'status' title, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not contrast with sibling tools.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to call this tool versus alternatives like configure or lib_index. It only describes what information is returned; any usage context must be inferred from the name 'lib_status' and the word 'current'.

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