get_library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description goes well beyond them by itemizing the returned payload (style name and template, README.md style guide, tokens.json colours/type/spacing/radius, assets by group with every version, fonts, open comment counts, merged tokens). This substitutes for the absent output schema. It stops short of describing size, caching, or pagination behavior.

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 instruction-bearing clause is front-loaded, which is good, but the middle is a single dense run-on stringing together several parenthetical enumerations of payload fields. Every element is informative, yet the absence of sentence breaks or grouping makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing return values and does so concretely, covering the style, both libraries, and the merged tokens. The session-vs-project parameter interplay is left to the schema text, which already covers it adequately.

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 100% so both parameters are documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds real semantic value on top by explaining that omitting 'project' switches the tool to returning the list of styles rather than a specific style's merge, which is behavior the schema text does not state.

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 opening clause gives a specific verb and resource ('Read the style a video uses') and the description goes on to enumerate exactly what is returned, so it is clearly distinguishable from write-side siblings like set_style, create_style, and copy_library. The only weakness is that 'the style a video uses' versus the large library payload takes a full paragraph to disambiguate.

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 gives explicit situational guidance ('Read it before you design anything: a thumbnail, captions, a motion graphic, a slide') and notes the no-project mode yields the list of styles. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous.

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