zotero_list_libraries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read-only; no side effects,' which is a clear behavioral trait. It also discloses that the active library isn't flagged and instructs how to track it, and explains the difference between local and web modes in terms of data sources. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure beyond what structured fields could convey.

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 information-dense but well-organized. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage guidance, mode differences, and operational notes, each sentence earning its place. The example at the end is useful but not redundant. Despite length, there is no fluff.

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 tool with an output schema (not shown), the description explains the output fields (library/group ID, display name, item count), the mode-specific behavior, and the workflow with zotero_switch_library. It also addresses the limitation of not flagging the active library. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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 the schema is empty. The description explicitly says 'No parameters,' which is consistent with the schema. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there is nothing to explain. It does not detract, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('List every Zotero library'), the specific resource types (personal, group, RSS feeds), and distinguishes it from siblings like zotero_get_collections and zotero_switch_library. The verb and resource are explicit, and the differentiation is built into the description.

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?

It explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover a library ID before calling zotero_switch_library' and provides a direct alternative for a related task: 'If the user only wants to see Zotero collections inside the CURRENT library, use zotero_get_collections instead.' It also explains mode-specific behavior (local vs web), leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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