Library part details

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the lower bar applies. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait not in the schema: includeValueLists is slower and should be combined with parameterNames. That performance guidance is real value beyond the annotations.

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?

It is dense but front-loaded with the core purpose and the enumeration of returned fields. The inline object shape and the final performance aside both earn their place. Slightly long, but no fluff sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly — enumerating the full field set and the structure of GDL parameter objects. Combined with the parameter notes, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by explaining the semantics of includeValueLists (adds allowed values/ranges from the parameter script, slower, pair with parameterNames) and by detailing the shape of the returned parameter objects, which adds meaning the schema alone does not carry.

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 names a specific verb (get/report) and resource (library part details) and enumerates exactly what is returned: identity, file location, subtype/ancestry, sections, default sizes, and the default GDL parameters. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like search_library_parts, get_library_part_scripts, and get_gdl_parameters by scoping to full part metadata.

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?

It states the temporal context ('before placing them') and explains that the returned parameter names are what create_objects and set_gdl_parameters expect, which helps route the agent. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming alternatives for narrow lookups, so a 4 rather than 5.

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