variable_library_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so there is no safety contradiction. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations by revealing that the response includes the active value set name, though it does not describe error behavior or the full set of returned fields.

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, front-loaded sentence. Every word contributes: it names the operation, scope, resource, and a key returned detail with no redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter, read-only getter with annotations covering safety, this description is nearly complete. It identifies the operation and a notable returned field; without an output schema it could be more exhaustive about return fields, but the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor gap.

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% for both parameters (workspaceId and variableLibraryId), so the schema already explains what each parameter means. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, matching the baseline of 3.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get details of a specific variable library'. It also names a meaningful output component, 'including its active value set name', which helps distinguish this single-item getter from sibling operations like variable_library_list or variable_library_get_definition.

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?

The word 'specific' implies this is the tool to use for one library by ID rather than for listing libraries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as variable_library_list or variable_library_get_definition, so the usage guidance is only implicit.

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