list_libraries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the useful extra detail that results are scoped to a low-privilege view, implying the output may be a subset of what an admin would see. It says nothing about pagination, result size, or what happens if profileId is invalid, so it adds only modest value beyond annotations.

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. The only inefficiency is the vague 'dedicated user' clause, which spends words without resolving the ambiguity it creates.

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 read tool with no output schema and solid annotations, the description is close to sufficient, but the completely undocumented profileId leaves a real gap for an agent that must supply it correctly. One clause about the identifier would make this complete.

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?

There is one required parameter, profileId, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent gets no help on whether profileId is a server profile, a user profile, or an identifier format. With schema coverage this low, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('libraries') and adds a scope qualifier about the permission level of the viewing user. The phrase 'dedicated user with no administrative or deletion permissions' is unusual phrasing but still signals that this returns a restricted view rather than everything on the server. It is distinct enough from siblings like list_upload_targets or search_media that an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The permission qualifier hints at the audience but doesn't tell an agent which sibling to choose when it needs library data versus media or upload targets.

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