tp_get_library_item

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the obvious read-only nature implied by 'Get'. No mention of authentication, response format, side effects, or limitations. The phrase 'including structure' adds some detail but not enough for a tool with no 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, concise sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. However, it is somewhat under-specified, but that is a content issue, not a structure issue.

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?

The description is insufficient for the tool's complexity. There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what 'full details' and 'structure' mean, but it does not. It also omits the optional 'athlete' context and the relationship between the parameters. The tool is simple, but the schema is sparse, so the description needs to do more.

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 only 33% (only 'athlete' is described). The description does not compensate for the undocumented 'library_id' and 'item_id' parameters. It adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the agent has to guess the role of these parameters.

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 a retrieval operation ('Get') for 'full template details', which corresponds to a library item. It distinguishes from list operations like tp_get_library_items by emphasizing 'full details' and 'structure', though it does not explicitly name any sibling tool.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or cases where another tool (e.g., tp_get_library_items) would be more appropriate. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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