get_library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' aligns with that. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., auth needs, rate limits, response details) are disclosed, but the description adds no contradictions either.

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?

One short sentence, no redundant wording, and it front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 get-by-ID tool with a rich output schema and read-only annotation, the description is sufficient. It does not discuss error cases or return structure, but the output schema covers those. Missing a bit of extra context (e.g., 'returns the full library object') keeps it from a 5.

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. It only states 'by ID', which merely restates the schema property name library_id. It does not add format, constraints, or examples, leaving the parameter semantics essentially to the schema alone.

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 'Get one library by ID' is a specific verb ('get') plus resource ('library') plus scope ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling list_libraries (which lists all) and other library mutation/management tools.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you have a specific library ID rather than listing all libraries. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or mention of alternatives beyond what the name suggests.

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