suggest_libraries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns a list of matching library names, but does not mention if it is read-only, any limitations, error behavior, or what happens with no matches. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences plus a docstring-style args/returns section. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It provides the input semantics and return format, but lacks context on when to prefer this over sibling tools like filtered_search, or behavior in edge cases. Could be slightly more comprehensive without becoming verbose.

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 parameter 'partial_name' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description adds significant meaning: it specifies that it is a partial library name and gives an example ('lang' -> ['langchain']). This goes beyond the schema's minimal type/title information.

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's purpose: suggesting libraries based on partial input for auto-completion. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('suggest libraries') and provides an example that differentiates it from sibling tools like semantic_search or filtered_search.

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?

While the description indicates usage for auto-completion scenarios and provides an input example, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., filtered_search) or when not to use it. No exclusions or context for best use is given.

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