hac_library_get

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the full content plus metadata is returned and that only verified scripts qualify, which is useful, but it says nothing about auth requirements, behavior on an unknown/unverified script_id, or size/rate characteristics.

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?

Front-loaded single sentence followed by a short Args block; no filler. The Args section slightly duplicates the schema but the embedded example earns its place.

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-parameter read with an output schema already present, the description covers purpose and an ID example adequately. The main residual gap is not pointing the agent to hac_library_list as the source of valid script_ids.

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 0% – the property is only titled 'Script Id' with no description – so the description must compensate. It does so by supplying a concrete example identifier format ('impex_20260911_115440_b2b_org_medical_mindray'), which tells the agent what a valid value looks like, though it still doesn't say where to obtain one.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieves) and resource (verified script from the unified script library), plus the scope of what comes back (complete content and metadata). It is distinguishable from the sibling hac_library_list by the singular 'get' framing, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over hac_library_list, and no prerequisites such as needing a script_id from a prior listing call. 'verified script' hints at a constraint but the agent is left to infer it.

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