LIST_DOCUMENT_LIBRARY

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little beyond the basic act of listing. It does not state that this is a safe read-only operation, nor whether results are paginated, how metadata is shaped, or any auth/size constraints. It adds minimal behavioral context for a no-annotation tool.

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 that states verb, resource, scope, and return content with no redundancy or filler. Appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 read tool the completeness bar is modest, but with no annotations and no output schema the definition should say more about the response (e.g. pagination, metadata fields, empty-list behavior). It covers the core purpose but leaves the return contract unspecified.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does add one semantic point beyond the empty schema: it returns all available libraries with their metadata and applies no filtering, which is useful context for an agent expecting an unfiltered enumeration.

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 states a specific verb (リストします/list) and resource (ドキュメントライブラリ/document libraries) plus what is returned (そのメタデータ/metadata), so the purpose is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling QUERY_DOCUMENT_LIBRARY, leaving the agent to infer the list-vs-query split on its own.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative (e.g. QUERY_DOCUMENT_LIBRARY) is named. The qualifier 「すべての利用可能な」 (all available) weakly implies this is the enumerate-everything variant, which is only implied usage rather than stated context.

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