library_list

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose important behavior: square (aigc_material) items apply without regeneration or quota consumption, generated AI panels are excluded, panels without applicable content are omitted but counted in unsupported, and *_ref references expire when the MCP service run ends. However, it does not cover error behavior, auth/prerequisite needs, or the difference between instance_id and project_path beyond what the schema already states.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior before the alternative tools and downstream steps, and almost every sentence adds information. The downside is density: the long parenthesized enumeration of panel kinds and the catalog of subcategories make it a wall of text that is harder to scan than a short bulleted structure would be.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: the shape of the response (panels, subcategories, materials with template_id/title/kind/cover_ref, next_cursor), pagination behavior, the unsupported counter, and the lifetime of image/video/audio references. It is nearly complete for a browsing tool, with only retrieval edge cases left unstated.

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 100%, so the schema documents all six parameters and the baseline is 3. The description does add real meaning for panel_key by explaining the general/square/collection grouping and the kinds inside each, and it hints at subcategory structure for category_id, but the other parameters (count, cursor, instance_id, project_path) are described only in the schema.

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 states two precise modes: with no panel_key it lists applicable panels and kinds, and with panel_key it paginates the materials inside that panel. It names the resource (panels/materials) and the exact identifiers returned (panel_key, kind, template_id, cover_ref), so an agent can distinguish it from library_search, library_apply, and library_images without opening any 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?

It gives explicit routing: use image_view when selecting by visual appearance via cover_ref, use library_search when you know what keyword you want, and use this tool when browsing by panel and subcategory. It also states the downstream steps (library_apply for template_id, library_images for ai_image results), which is clear when-to-use and when-not guidance.

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