get_library_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get details') but does not disclose authentication requirements (despite token parameters), side effects, or behavior when multiple identifiers are supplied or when none are. There is no mention of error conditions or rate limits. The description is too terse to convey behavioral expectations.

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 description is a single concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and the lookup method. While it is short, it is not verbose or padded, earning a high score for structure despite the lack of detail.

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?

The tool has 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only explains two parameters and gives no information about return format, authentication, error handling, or relationships between parameters. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly without additional context, making it highly incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain all parameters. It mentions only repo_id and library_name via 'by repo_id or name', leaving repo_token, account_token, and session_token completely unexplained. It also does not clarify whether the 'or' implies mutual exclusivity or priority, nor what happens if both are provided. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly fill parameters.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Get details of one library') and specifies the lookup method ('by repo_id or name'). It distinguishes from list_libraries (which lists multiple libraries) and hints at a singular retrieval. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from resolve_library, which could also resolve a library identifier.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_libraries or resolve_library. It does not state conditions for selection, exclusions, or prerequisites. The only contextual hint is the phrase 'one library' implying singular retrieval, but that is not explicit guidance.

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