Quality Distribution

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

With no annotations, the description must provide behavioral insight, but it only states the basic counting function. It omits details on pagination, output format, or any side effects, leaving the agent uncertain about tool behavior.

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 only one sentence (8 words), which is overly terse. While concise, it sacrifices essential information, making it insufficient for a tool with 11 parameters and many siblings.

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 11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain any parameter usage or return value structure, leaving a large gap for the agent.

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 11 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameter meanings. The agent receives no help understanding required filters like 'app', 'from', 'to', or output controls like 'detail' and 'groupBy'.

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 counts library items by current file quality, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate itself from its sibling 'library_quality_distribution', which likely serves a similar purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'library_quality_distribution' or other distribution tools. There are no exclusions or context indicators.

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