hac_library_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Verified successful' hints at curation, but it never states that this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated or capped, or how many scripts a filterless call returns — all material for a listing tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the tool's scope, followed by a compact Args block with no redundant prose. Slightly repetitive of parameter names, but each line adds a filter semantic rather than restating the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape details are correctly omitted, and the filter set is fully enumerated. Still missing for a list/search tool: default behavior with no filters, result ordering, and any limit on the number of scripts returned.

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 0%, yet the Args block documents all four parameters with concrete values ('impex'/'groovy' for script_type, example categories like 'b2b_organization', 'search_solr') and explains that query spans script names, tags, and descriptions. That is real added meaning over the bare schema, though it omits match behavior (substring vs fuzzy) and whether filters AND together.

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 pair ('Lists and searches') and a precise resource ('verified successful scripts (ImpEx and Groovy) stored in the unified script library'). The 'verified successful' qualifier meaningfully narrows what the library contains, though it never names sibling hac_library_get as the fetch-one alternative.

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 statement, no when-not, and no alternative tool named despite a directly adjacent sibling (hac_library_get) for retrieving a single script. The filters imply a browse/discover workflow, but that must be inferred rather than read.

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