query_library_items

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses scope (standalone library, normalized components/patterns) but omits behavioral details such as return format, pagination implication (though params imply it), read-only nature, or any prerequisites. The minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool with no other behavioral hints.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the information it conveys. It is concise without being under-specified to the point of uselessness (unlike a bare tautology).

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?

Although an output schema exists (covering return values), the description lacks operational context. It does not explain what a 'standalone library' is, when to use this query over other library tools, or how parameters interact. For a 4-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, this one-sentence description is not enough to ensure 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter information. Terms like 'path', 'limit', 'query', and 'offset' are self-explanatory in name alone, but the description does not add meaning beyond the schema titles. It fails to explain what 'path' points to or how 'query' matches items, leaving the agent to guess.

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 action ('Query') and resource ('normalized components or patterns in a standalone library'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_library_pattern and get_library_component by indicating a query operation over a library rather than fetching a specific item. However, it does not explicitly contrast with scanning tools or mention filtering semantics, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling library-related tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or scenarios where this is the preferred choice. The description simply describes what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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