list_asset_libraries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does well for a simple read operation: it states that only bundled Essentials and local Preferences libraries are returned, and that online libraries are never listed or fetched. It does not explicitly say 'read-only' or 'no side effects,' but the listed behavior is sufficiently consistent with a safe discovery call.

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 short and front-loaded: the first sentence states purpose and scope, and the second documents the return shape. No sentence is wasted.

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 simplicity of the tool, an empty input schema, no annotations, and an output schema, the description provides enough context: it defines which libraries are included/excluded and describes the returned dictionary. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a meaningful differentiator. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain any inputs.

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 ('List') and resource ('asset libraries') and defines the included library types: Essentials and local Preferences libraries. It does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools such as list_assets, but the resource scope is clear enough that an agent can distinguish it.

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 conveys scope and an exclusion ('Online libraries are never listed or fetched'), which implies when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like list_assets or place_asset, so usage guidance is only implied.

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