library_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context by disclosing that default results omit scripts and large geometry (payload weight depends on details). It still omits pagination behavior and what refresh actually re-fetches.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the search scope and followed by the one non-obvious flag and the sibling handoff. No 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 6-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema and thin schema descriptions, the description covers the two most consequential parameters but leaves paging (limit/offset) and refresh unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently scope large result sets.

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 only 17% (only table_id documented), so the description must compensate. It does explain query's searchable fields and details' effect on payload content, but limit, offset, and refresh are left with no semantics in either place.

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 and resource ('Search library templates') and enumerates the searchable fields (name/category/id/kind), which clearly separates it from library_save and objects_list. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with objects_list/objects_spawn, but the 'library templates' resource scope is distinct enough to identify the right tool.

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?

Gives one concrete routing rule: use details=true to get scripts and large geometry, otherwise defer to script_read for template scripts. That is genuine alternative-routing guidance, but there is nothing on when to use library_list vs objects_list, nor when to use refresh or how to page.

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