Library part GDL scripts

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only profile, so the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: encrypted parts return errors, long scripts are truncated at maxLength, and the default versus optional script sets are specified. It does not cover authentication, rate limits, or pagination, but those are less relevant for a read-only getter.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes: script enumeration, use cases, error condition, and truncation behavior. There is no filler or repetition, and the density is appropriate for a three-parameter tool with no output 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so by listing the exact scripts returned. It also covers error and truncation behavior, and annotations cover safety, leaving no significant gap for correct invocation.

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 adds value by naming exactly which six scripts are the default set and by clarifying the truncation effect of maxLength ('Long scripts are cut at maxLength characters'), which goes slightly beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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?

Starts with a precise verb+resource: 'Returns the GDL source of a library part', and enumerates the exact script artifacts returned. This clearly separates it from metadata-oriented siblings like get_library_part_details and makes the output content unambiguous.

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?

Provides two concrete usage scenarios: learning how a standard part works, and serving as a starting point for create_library_part. It also warns that encrypted parts return errors, which implicitly scopes when the tool won't work, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_library_part_details or search_library_parts.

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