library_desk_get

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 description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by specifying the resource type ('bounded reading desk snapshot') and scope, which helps set expectations for what the tool returns. No contradiction with 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with rich annotations and only two optional parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. It lacks details about the snapshot's structure or handling of missing sessions, but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, it does not require more. The description is adequate for its scope.

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 50%: collection has a description but session_id lacks one, and the tool description does not elaborate on either parameter. The sentence 'for a session' hints at session_id's role but does not clarify its format or default behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, leaving a gap for session_id.

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 verb ('Read'), the resource ('latest bounded reading desk snapshot'), and the scope ('for a session'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like library_desk_refresh (which likely refreshes) and library_desk_watch (which likely watches), establishing a unique 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 implies usage when you need to read a snapshot, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling names like refresh and watch hint at alternatives, but the description itself offers no direct comparison or selection criteria.

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