library_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does at least declare 'Read-only', which is the single most important behavioral fact for a status tool. It says nothing about what happens with an unknown or expired session, whether the result is a snapshot or live, or how the three step categories are represented, leaving real gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 short fragments, front-loaded with the read-only guarantee and then the payload. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than economy.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is the only source of truth and it omits the session identifier format and the shape of the returned step lists. For a tool whose entire value is its return structure, that is insufficient.

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 0% and the single required parameter 'session' is undocumented in both schema and description. The agent cannot tell whether it is a session name, an ID, or a path, which is a meaningful gap even for a one-parameter tool.

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 names a resource (a session) and the content returned (done / next / remaining steps), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, 'library_status' vs siblings like library_step, library_plan, and library_abort is not differentiated, and 'session' is never defined, so the agent must guess what kind of session this reports on.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether to call this before library_step, after library_abort, or instead of library_plan. The only usage signal is the implicit 'read-only' framing, which does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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