Api stored libraries retrieve

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description does add genuine value beyond them by disclosing that unauthorized related fields are masked in the response, though it doesn't say what makes a field unauthorized or which fields are affected.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but its brevity comes from omission rather than precision. It is efficiently worded yet too thin to orient an agent.

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 one-parameter retrieve with no output schema, the description leaves the resource identity, the id format, and the masking rules undefined. Given the dense cluster of sibling retrieve variants, an agent lacks the information needed to select and call this correctly.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate and does not; the meaning, format, and source of the "id" string are never explained. The trivial schema keeps it from being a 1, but no semantic information is added.

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?

"Return a single object" restates the retrieve semantics already implied by the tool name and never names the resource (a stored library). The only substantive content, "unauthorized related fields masked," describes response behavior rather than what is being fetched, so an agent cannot tell this apart from siblings like stored_libraries_object_retrieve or stored_libraries_content_retrieve.

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 when-to-use guidance at all, despite a large family of near-identical siblings (list, object_retrieve, retrieve, content_retrieve, tree_retrieve). Nothing states that this fetches one library by id, nor when to prefer object_retrieve or content_retrieve instead.

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