get_library_reference_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool reports (availability and how to enable) and the implication of unavailability (fallback to observed usage). It does not mention side effects, but as a status report, it is likely read-only. The description adds value beyond a simple status check by explaining the dependency chain.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a direct statement of purpose, then provides essential context in a second paragraph. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 present, the description is complete. It explains what the tool reports and why the status matters, giving an agent sufficient context to decide when to call it. No missing information is evident for correct 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage (since there are no properties). The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. Per the baseline for zero parameters, a score of 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 tool's function: 'Report whether the firmware library reference is available, and how to enable it.' It identifies a specific resource (firmware library reference) and the action (report availability and enablement). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_type or get_fb_signature, which retrieve specific data objects.

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?

The description provides context on why this tool matters: it explains that the reference is vendor help installed with MotionWorks and that unavailability causes library signatures to fall back to observed usage. This implies the tool is useful for diagnosing signature quality, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It gives clear situational guidance without exclusions.

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