List learned library parts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavior: it reads only the local records file, needs no Archicad, reports missing fields, names unrecorded requested parts, and returns the records file path. This is substantial extra context beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core list operation and then layers in filtering, returned fields, missing/not_recorded semantics, and local-file behavior. The sentences are dense but purposeful, with no obvious 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?

For a low-complexity, single-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly. It also explains key return semantics and the local-file/no-Archicad constraint.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the single optional parameter is explained in the description: names limits results to only those parts, while omission returns all records. The schema supplies the array-of-strings type and null default, and the description compensates well for the semantic gap.

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 and resource: it lists learned library part records. It also clarifies the optional names filtering and the returned data categories. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as learn_library_part or record_library_part, which keeps it from a 5.

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 explains that it can list all records or only those named in names, which implies when to use the parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like learn_library_part or record_library_part, nor does it give exclusions or alternatives.

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