get_library

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does explain what the call returns by listing the setting categories, and 'Get' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose whether special permissions are required, how invalid library IDs are handled, or whether the response has a particular structure beyond the listed fields.

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 focused sentence with the primary action front-loaded. The enumeration of settings is compact and every word adds value, with no redundant filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns by listing the setting categories, and the schema covers the parameter source. It does not address edge cases like missing libraries or permission failures, but the low complexity of the tool makes that a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter documentation, with library_id described as 'Library ID (dbID), from list_libraries'. The description adds no new parameter semantics, but none are needed because the schema already provides clear meaning and provenance for the only required 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one library's full settings record'), and it enumerates the setting categories included, such as folders, filters, schedule, and plugin stack. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_libraries, which lists libraries rather than fetching a single library's settings.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need a single library's full settings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_libraries for listing libraries or scan_library for scanning actions. Usage context is inferable but not spelled out.

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