List libraries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by noting that it lists libraries 'available locally' and that the output is meant to supply a groupId for downstream tools.

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 tight sentences deliver the action, the scope, and the practical purpose with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the usage tip is placed second without redundant phrasing.

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 parameterless read-only listing tool with an output schema available, the description is fully sufficient. It names the exact content of the result (personal + group libraries) and tells the agent why the result matters, leaving no functional gaps for 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; instead it clarifies how the returned value (groupId) should be used, which adds meaningful context to the empty schema.

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 specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('the personal library and every group library'), and a scope qualifier ('available locally'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like zotero_list_collections and zotero_list_tags. It also explains the purpose of the result (getting groupId), making the tool's role 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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: when other tools need a groupId because the target is a group library rather than 'My Library'. This provides clear context and an implicit exclusion, since a plain 'My Library' operation would not require this lookup.

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