public_domain_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a read-only operation via 'Get' and discloses the returned fields (title, author, date, themes, key insights). However, it doesn't mention pagination, result limits, or the effect of the domain parameter, leaving some behavioral details undisclosed.

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 that delivers the core purpose and return fields without fluff. Every clause adds value, and it is short enough to be processed quickly.

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 a simple input schema and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. It is sufficient for a basic library lookup, though it could benefit from mentioning that the domain parameter expands beyond military philosophy. Overall, the description is complete enough 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?

The schema covers the domain parameter 100%, describing allowed values and default. The description adds no extra meaning about how domain filtering works or how it relates to the 'military and strategic philosophy' scope. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 clearly states the tool gets major works of military and strategic philosophy in the public domain, listing the return fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like sun_tzu or napoleon_maxims, which are specific works rather than a general library. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'public domain works' provide a specific, unambiguous purpose.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as sun_tzu or commander_doctrine. It doesn't mention that specific works have dedicated tools or that this library is for broader exploration. No exclusions or alternative contexts are provided, leaving the choice to the agent's inference.

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