Get library items

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context with 'slim listing' (implying a lightweight response) and the relationship to other library tools. It does not detail pagination or return fields, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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?

Two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and each sentence adding essential value: the first defines the scope, the second covers parameter sourcing and an alternative for related functionality. No 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?

For a simple list tool with two parameters and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter source, and alternative usage. The lack of return payload details is partially mitigated by 'slim listing', but the absence of any output schema means a bit more detail on response structure would be ideal.

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 describes 'athlete' but leaves library_id undocumented. The description compensates by explaining that library_id comes from tp_get_libraries and is the identifier for the library being listed. This provides meaningful context beyond the raw schema.

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 states the specific verb 'List' and resource 'workout templates in one library', immediately clarifying the tool's function. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting 'slim listing' and explicitly referencing tp_get_library_item for full interval structure.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: library_id should come from tp_get_libraries, and if full interval structure is needed, use tp_get_library_item instead. This clearly communicates when to use this tool versus an alternative.

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