theory_library

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context the annotations lack: the bounded size of the library (240) and the intended hand-off pattern to other tools. It does not mention result ordering or that results are truncated by default, which keeps it below top marks.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the identity and scope of the resource come first, the multi-tool hand-off second. Everything is front-loaded and nothing redundant is repeated from the schema.

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 read-only, fully described two-parameter search with no output schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly and knows where the results feed next. The only gap is what the returned entries look like or how they are ordered, which is minor given the annotation coverage.

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 coverage is 100%, with both 'query' (all-words-match with example) and 'limit' (default 40, max 240) fully documented. The description adds only the implicit hint that a 'name' is the query target, which is marginal beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (the 240 named progressions), and enumerates the genre scope, which distinguishes it from the sibling theory_progression lookup tool. An agent can immediately tell it retrieves library entries rather than generating or analyzing a progression.

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 second sentence gives clear downstream context: a found name can be passed to theory_progression or clips.write_progression as 'library'. That frames when the tool is useful, though it does not explicitly contrast with theory_vocabulary or state that this is browse-first when no progression name is known.

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