Get libraries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, read-only nature is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'List,' which matches the annotations. There is no contradiction, but the description also provides no extra detail about return format, pagination, or coach-specific behavior.

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 sentence that says exactly what the tool does without filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word 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?

For a simple list tool with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient. It lacks an explicit note about the optional athlete parameter or return shape, but these are either in the schema or inferable from the tool's simplicity. The presence of sibling tools like tp_get_library_items clarifies the domain context.

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 fully describes the single optional 'athlete' parameter with a clear description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not mention the parameter, but the schema already handles semantic meaning. Thus the description adds no extra value beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('workout library folders'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tp_get_library_items and tp_get_library_item, which operate on items within libraries. It is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool's name.

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 its usage—when you need to list workout library folders—but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or relationships to sibling tools like tp_get_library_items, though the naming makes the distinction reasonably inferable.

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