List the model library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful cross-tool semantics (version pinning syntax, that edit_library publishes and edit_model can revert), but with an output schema present the return-shape detail is redundant rather than value-adding.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a dense semicolon-chained run-on mixing output columns, cross-tool syntax, and semantics. Every clause is relevant, but the structure makes it hard to parse on first read.

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?

With annotations covering read-only behavior and an output schema documenting the return shape, the description's job is largely done; it adds cross-tool integration context that an agent genuinely needs. It is complete enough to call correctly, though the terse style leaves some room for ambiguity.

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% and the single `name` param is fully documented in the schema itself. The description repeats and slightly extends that (name=<entry> lists its versions with the column set), but adds little beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource and scope: approved model-file revisions kept in the asset library, distinguishing the top-level entry list from an entry's version list. It also names related siblings (place, edit_model, edit_library), though the telegraphic phrasing makes the core purpose slightly harder to extract than a clean verb+resource sentence.

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?

It explains how library entries are consumed elsewhere (place model=library:<name>, edit_model replace file=library:<name>@<v>, edit_library publishes), which implies this is the browse/inspect step. However, it never explicitly states when to call this tool versus alternatives like model or file, so the when-to-use guidance is only inferred.

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