Library items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: the 14-day retention window and the pagination cursor chaining contract, both of which materially affect how results should be consumed.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler: item semantics and retention first, pagination contract second. Both sentences carry information, though the pagination sentence largely restates the 'before' schema description.

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 no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it only partially does so — it names the 'berikut' cursor but not the shape of returned items. Two of four parameters lack documentation anywhere, leaving an agent to guess at filtering behavior.

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 only 50%, and the description only reinforces the 'before' parameter (already documented in the schema as the previous page's begin value). It adds no meaning for the undocumented search and folderId parameters, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 given the partial schema documentation.

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 the resource clearly (library items) and specifies what it contains — uploaded images and saved results — which separates it from history or folder listings. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings like axcel_history_list or axcel_folder_list.

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 only guidance is pagination mechanics ('use the returned begin value as before'), which is invocation detail rather than selection guidance. There is no statement of when to call this versus axcel_history_list or axcel_folder_list, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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