Api stored libraries object retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description contributes nothing beyond that — no mention of required permissions, 404 behaviour on unknown ids, or response shape — so it adds zero behavioral context on top of the annotations.

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 comes from under-specification rather than efficient phrasing: a single token that duplicates the name earns no place. Conciseness short of any informative content is not a virtue.

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 read endpoint in a very crowded sibling namespace, the definition supplies nothing an agent needs: no notion of what entity is fetched, what the id is, or how it relates to stored_libraries_retrieve/list. Output schema and annotation coverage cannot compensate because the ambiguity is about identity and selection, not safety.

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?

There is a single required 'id' string parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not identify what the id refers to (stored library UUID? object type key? slug?). The implicit 'retrieve by id' reading is inferable from the name, but nothing clarifies the identifier's expected format or source.

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 literally the operation ID 'api_stored_libraries_object_retrieve' restated as prose, which is a tautology of the tool name. It never states in plain language what is being retrieved — a stored library object by id — nor distinguishes it from siblings like stored_libraries_retrieve or stored_libraries_list.

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 whatsoever on when to use this tool versus the many adjacent siblings (stored_libraries_retrieve, stored_libraries_object_type_retrieve, stored_libraries_content_retrieve, stored_libraries_tree_retrieve). The agent is left to guess purely from the identifier.

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