Api loaded libraries retrieve

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

Annotations already declare this is a safe, idempotent read. The description adds one useful behavioral trait beyond that: unauthorized related fields are masked. It does not explain masking scope, permission requirements, or what 'related fields' means.

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 a single, waste-free sentence, but it is too terse for the ambiguity of the tool. The masking point is front-loaded only implicitly, and the sentence omits the resource name entirely.

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 retrieve-by-id tool with no output schema, the description should at least identify the loaded library resource and clarify the id. Instead it explains only masking, leaving the core operation underspecified.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description would need to explain the required id parameter. It does not say what the id identifies, how to obtain it, or what format it expects. The single obvious id parameter prevents a score of 1, but the description adds no real semantic value.

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 says it returns a single object, but never names the resource being retrieved (a loaded library). It is not a pure tautology, yet an agent cannot distinguish this from siblings like loaded_libraries_object_retrieve or loaded_libraries_content_retrieve based on the text.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what id refers to, or when to prefer it over the list, object_retrieve, or content_retrieve siblings. The description provides no usage context at all.

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