List library items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description only restates the HTTP endpoint; it says nothing about pagination, default limits, ordering, empty results, or whether all items or only the caller's items are returned.

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 plus the endpoint path, front-loaded and free of filler. It is concise, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

With four undocumented optional parameters, no output schema, and no notes on filtering or result shape, the definition leaves too much unspecified for a listing endpoint an agent may need to filter or paginate. It should at least explain what tag, kind, limit, and clientId filter.

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 the description provides zero information about the four parameters (tag, kind, limit, clientId). The agent gets no meaning for 'tag' scoping, the image/video enum, or how limit interacts with pagination.

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+resource ('List library items') and adds the endpoint path, so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it gives no differentiation from siblings like creativeLibrary_get, creativeLibrary_content, or creativeLibrary_file, leaving the agent to infer that this is a collection-level listing rather than a single-item fetch.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus creativeLibrary_get (single item) or creativeLibrary_content (content retrieval). The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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