check_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful result semantics: violations are returned with reasons, and an empty result means everything passes. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what permissions are needed.

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?

It is short and contains no obvious filler, with the result semantics front-loaded in the parenthetical. But the sentence is an awkward fragment ('The library against the physical rules') that reads more like a note than a structured definition.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description is the only source of truth. It gives a hint about output shape but leaves critical context undefined: what 'physical rules' are, what the library contains, and why an agent should choose this over check_finish or validate_spec.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are moot and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any inputs.

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 gestures at an audit of a library against 'physical rules' and says it returns finishes that break a rule and why. That is more than a restatement of the name, but the phrasing is fragmentary and never states a clear verb or what the 'library' or 'physical rules' are. An agent can infer it is a validation/check tool, but the scope and object remain vague.

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 explicit guidance on when to call this versus siblings like check_finish, check_coating, or validate_spec. The parenthetical '(empty: all hold)' clarifies the result semantics but not the usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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