list_libraries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does well by surfacing the important runtime limitation that libraries only work with native OpenSCAD, not the bundled WASM engine. This is more than a restatement of the tool's name. It doesn't detail the exact output format, but 'List' strongly implies a read-only enumeration.

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 concise sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the critical compatibility caveat in the second sentence. No filler, no redundant phrasing.

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?

Given this is a simple zero-parameter read-only list operation, the description is adequate: it names the resource, states what it does, and flags an important environment-specific behavior. It could add what the output looks like or when it might be empty, but for such a low-complexity tool the current description covers the essential decision and expectation-setting information.

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 has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to document any arguments. The schema already shows an empty properties object, and the description appropriately adds no parameter noise.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('installed OpenSCAD libraries'), clearly identifying what the tool does. The caveat about native OpenSCAD vs the WASM engine also helps distinguish it from the rendering/exporting sibling tools.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to know which libraries are installed. The note about libraries not working with the WASM engine also tells agents when results may not be meaningful, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions.

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