List Library concepts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are paginated and optionally filtered by one family, and implies a read-only browsing operation. It does not mention response format or rate limits, but the core behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and the alternative-tool routing is stated in the same compact passage.

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 list tool with no required parameters, this description is complete: it states the scope, pagination, filtering, and relationship to sibling tools. The mention of finding slugs also signals what the output can be used for, which is sufficient given there is no output schema.

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 67%, and the description adds useful meaning to the family parameter by explaining it as a filter for a single family and by tying pagination to the page and page_size parameters. The schema already documents defaults, so the description complements rather than repeats it.

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 a specific action ('Browse every trading and technical-analysis concept in the Library') and defines the pagination and optional family scoping. It distinguishes this tool from library_search and library_get_concept by naming the exact use cases.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool to enumerate a topic area or find slugs for library_get_concept, and directs users to prefer library_search for keyword lookup. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance relative to key siblings.

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