get_library_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns specific aggregate data, indicating a read-only operation, but does not explicitly declare safety (e.g., no side effects) or address authorization or rate limits. Some behavioral context is provided but incomplete.

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 of approximately 15 words, front-loading the purpose and listing key outputs. Every phrase adds value, with no redundancy or 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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It could be improved by clarifying how 'default' library is determined, but overall is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100% and the sole parameter 'libraryId' is already well-described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get an overview') and resource ('component library'), listing exactly what is returned: component count, average health score, grade distribution, and last health check timestamp. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_component' or 'get_health_summary'.

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 use for a high-level library overview but does not specify when to prefer this over alternative tools (e.g., 'get_health_summary' or 'list_libraries'), nor does it mention prerequisites like having loaded a library. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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