Inspect global Library and Provider status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns extra credit by disclosing non-obvious behavior: Community is frozen and excluded from default search, capture/project-pin status is deliberately absent, and fresh installs return setup_required until both the global Library and Local workspace are bound. These are genuinely useful traits not derivable from structured 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?

Four front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary action and scope lead, then behavioral caveats follow. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information, though the phrasing is somewhat telemetry-heavy.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does a decent job of describing returned status content, so return values are reasonably covered. The gap is the two undocumented path parameters and the lack of routing guidance among the many status-related siblings, leaving the definition only minimally complete for correct invocation.

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% and neither parameter (sourcePackDir, moduleSourcePackDir) is mentioned anywhere in the description. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, but it provides no meaning for either path argument, so an agent cannot tell what they scope or when to supply them.

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 gives a specific verb ('Return') and enumerates the exact resources covered: global portable Library, immutable lifecycle, write lock, and every registered Provider. This clearly separates it from mutation siblings like apply_bind_* or plan_*. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the other status/inspection siblings (figure_library_describe, figure_library_github_auth_status, figure_library_list_provider_sources), so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus the many siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions phrased as guidance. Notes like 'Community is reported as frozen' and 'Capture/project-pin status is intentionally absent' describe output content, not usage conditions. The agent is left to infer that this is the status-inspection entry point.

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