List Libraries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond annotations: it does not change the default library, pagination applies only to groups, the personal library is included on every page, and key permissions do not guarantee group access since Zotero enforces permissions per call.

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?

Four short sentences cover purpose, downstream use, side effects, and access caveats. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence adds distinct value with no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

The definition is complete enough for a read-only listing tool with an output schema available. It explains pagination, side effects, and permission caveats, which are the main uncertainties an agent could face. Minor details like the exact meaning of 'key owner' are not spelled out, but they are not essential for invoking the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It explains the pagination model conceptually and that the personal library repeats on each page, which clarifies how limit/start behave. However, it does not explicitly describe limit as page size or start as an offset, leaving some meaning to be inferred from the schema's defaults and parameter names.

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 a specific verb and resource: it lists the key owner's personal library and a page of shared group libraries. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_collections or list_tags, so an agent knows exactly what resource is being enumerated.

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 concrete downstream usage guidance: use the returned library_id and library_type on subsequent calls. It also clarifies pagination behavior and access semantics. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use it, but the intended context is clear enough.

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