get_library_part

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 covered. The description adds only that the return includes metadata (source, maintainer, link), which is mildly useful given there is no output schema, but it discloses nothing about lookup failure behavior or whether it works across all open libraries.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently structured, though it is arguably too terse given the missing usage and parameter detail.

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 simple read-only getter this is minimally viable, and the description does sketch the return payload. However, with no output schema and no differentiation from sibling retrieval tools like get_part, an agent lacks enough to confidently select and invoke it.

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 never mentions the single required 'part_id' parameter — not its format, origin, or how to obtain it. With one required parameter carrying no semantics anywhere, the schema cannot compensate and the description fails to fill the gap.

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 names a specific verb+resource: fetching the 'Full definition of one library part.' Using 'library part' distinguishes it somewhat from the sibling 'get_part,' but it never explicitly contrasts the two, so the boundary is left to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the many related siblings (get_part, list_parts, search_library, open_library). An agent must guess whether this is the correct retrieval tool for a library-scoped part.

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