library_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get all items' but doesn't clarify what 'items' are (e.g., presentations, media files), whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or potential side effects. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that likely interacts with a library system.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Get all items in a specific library'. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant phrasing. This makes it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of a library system with many sibling tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'items' entail, the return format, error conditions, or how it differs from similar retrieval tools. This makes it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context or trial-and-error.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'libraryId' documented as 'The ID of the library (UUID, name, or index)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as examples of valid IDs or how 'all items' are filtered. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately defines the parameter.

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 'Get all items in a specific library' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('items in a library'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'library_get_libraries' (which likely gets libraries themselves rather than items within them) or other 'get_' tools that retrieve different resources, leaving the differentiation implicit rather than explicit.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'library_get_libraries', 'get_presentation', 'playlists_get'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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