librus_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does assert the key safety-relevant trait: the tool is read-only and non-destructive. However, it does not describe return values, pagination, or failure behavior, and since the schema has no output schema, the agent knows neither the shape of the result nor what to expect on unsupported cases.

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?

Two short sentences with the primary verb+resource front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by constraining scope (read-only, no arbitrary URL), even though it partially restates the word 'read.' Overall it is tight and free of filler.

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 description plus fully documented schema adequately cover what the tool does and how to call it, including the dependency expressed in the account_login parameter. Yet with no output schema and no description hint about return shape, an agent invoking this across 27 heterogeneous resources has an at-a-glance fixed description of the response.

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 100%: the enum of 27 resources, the YYYY-MM-DD pattern with 'ignored for other resources', and the 'account_login returned by librus_profiles' dependency are all already documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which fits the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Read') and resource ('a supported Librus API resource'), so the core capability is clear. The added boundary — 'accepts no arbitrary URL or write operation' — separates it from any generic API-access tool, and the read-only framing naturally distinguishes it from the auth-oriented siblings (librus_profiles, librus_logout), though it never names them.

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 conveys when to use the tool implicitly: when a supported Librus resource needs to be retrieved. It makes explicit exclusions (no arbitrary URLs, no writes), which helps an agent know what NOT to do here, but it does not name an alternative tool or state a precondition such as retrieving account_login via librus_profiles first.

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