pick_library

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the output behavior (1-3 libraries, one-line reasoning, honest warning) and implies a non-destructive read-only operation via 'Use before installing anything.' This exceeds the minimum for a recommendation tool but doesn't go into deeper side effects or requirements.

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, info-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with only 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, output format, and usage timing. It also hints at the data source (should-i-use index) and differentiates from siblings. No critical information is missing.

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 'task' and 'ecosystem' are already well documented. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details, but it doesn't need to—the schema handles it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action: 'recommend 1-3 libraries from the should-i-use index' with reasoning and a warning. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'should_i_use' (which likely evaluates a specific library) and 'alternatives' (which suggests substitutes) by focusing on task-based recommendations.

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 description provides clear usage context with 'Given a coding task' and explicit timing guidance: 'Use before installing anything.' It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the directive is unambiguous and gives the agent enough to know when to invoke it.

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