ip_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; 'List' implies a read-only enumeration, which is reasonably clear. It discloses the exact directory and file type being listed, but says nothing about result size, pagination defaults, or what happens with an empty match.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and location, followed by the filtering capability. No filler or redundancy.

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 file-listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema needed (the return is evidently a list of files), the description covers location, output nature, and filtering adequately. Only pagination/return-format specifics are missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description adds only mild value by mapping 'family' and 'name fragment' to the corresponding filters, but the limit/pagination param is unaddressed. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (IP mode-definition files under db/mcu/IP), and gives a concrete filename example (ADC-STM32F4xx_Cube_Modes.xml). It is clearly distinguishable from mode_list/mode_catalog siblings, though it doesn't name those alternatives explicitly.

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 phrase 'Filter by family or name fragment' implies how to narrow results, giving implicit usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance nor any pointer to the related mode_list or family_list siblings for cross-referencing.

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