list_library

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 does usefully explain the two library categories and the relationship to upload reuse and download. However, it remains silent on other behavioral aspects such as whether the operation is read-only, what fields are returned, ordering, pagination, or authentication requirements.

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?

A single well-formed sentence structured with a colon and parentheticals, making it dense but highly scannable. Every clause adds distinct information, and the most important action is front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

Given the simple tool shape — one optional filtered parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema — the description provides sufficient context for the primary action and meaningful notes on how the listed images can be used. It does not need to restate the filter enum because the schema already documents it, and the parenthetical references to reference_library_names and download_image anticipate follow-up actions.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description also adds meaning to the enum categories by explaining what 'uploads' and 'generated images' signify in terms of reusability and downloadability. The description goes beyond a bare enum listing without repeating schema details.

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?

Begins with an explicit verb and resource: 'List the images in the Flow project library.' The description clearly splits the content into uploads and generated images, and by referencing download_image it distinguishes this listing tool from the retrieval sibling. An agent can immediately tell what the tool does and how it connects to the other tools.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated. The description explains that uploads can be reused via reference_library_names and generated images can be re-downloaded with download_image, but it never directly says 'use this when you need to see available images' or contrasts list_library with generate_image/generate_batch. This leaves usage timing to inference.

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