libraries_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool 'gets' metadata, implying a read operation, but does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. The lack of detail on what happens when inputs are invalid or results are empty is a gap.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every word adds value, and the structure is clean and easy to parse.

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?

Given no output schema, the description partially addresses return values by listing example content (repository info, versions, popularity metrics). However, it does not specify the exact format, pagination, or limits. For a simple lookup with few parameters and no nested objects, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Both parameters ('platform' and 'name') have descriptions in the schema, which already provide clear semantics. The description adds context about the output (repository info, versions, popularity metrics) but does not elaborate on the parameters themselves. With 100% schema coverage, the description meets the baseline without adding significant new meaning.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves package metadata from Libraries.io, including specific details like repository info, versions, and popularity metrics. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'package metadata' are precise, and the tool name distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific package managers or other Libraries.io functions.

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 implies usage for fetching package metadata from Libraries.io but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus specific package manager tools (e.g., npm_package, pypi_package). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the sibling list.

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