library_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior alone. It clarifies the scope (personal library) and optional filtering, but does not disclose return format, ordering, or explicitly confirm read-only behavior. For a list tool this is moderate but leaves some gaps.

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 a single sentence followed by concrete examples, with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it highly efficient.

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 simple list tool with optional filters, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and usage contexts. The schema handles all parameter details. While there is no output schema, the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable.

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 all four parameters described in detail. The description's mention of 'optionally filtered' adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists the user's personal arXivSub library, including collections and saved items, and distinguishes it from sibling search/save tools by emphasizing the personal library scope. The use-case examples further clarify its purpose.

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 provides specific example queries ('what have I saved', 'show my library') that indicate when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage is clear from these examples.

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