Api loaded libraries object retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what object is returned, whether the id is a UUID or a slug-type identifier, or what happens on lookup failure.

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?

It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy: a single underscored identifier conveys no information an agent didn't already have from the tool name. Nothing is front-loaded because nothing is stated.

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 retrieval tool that sits among dozens of near-identical loaded_libraries operations, with no output schema to describe the return value and no parameter documentation, the description is entirely inadequate to guide correct selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter 'id' is typed only as string with no format or meaning. The description provides no compensating detail such as whether 'id' is the loaded library's primary key, a stored-library reference, or a framework identifier, leaving a real ambiguity for this family of tools.

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 is the tool's snake_case name echoed back verbatim ('api_loaded_libraries_object_retrieve'), offering no verb+resource phrasing beyond what the identifier already encodes. An agent learns only that it retrieves some object related to loaded libraries; it cannot distinguish it from sibling tools such as ciso_assistant_api_loaded_libraries_retrieve or ciso_assistant_api_loaded_libraries_content_retrieve. This is tautology rather than explanation.

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 guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool, when not to, or which of the many similar loaded_libraries siblings is the correct alternative. The agent must infer the distinction from name fragments alone.

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