type_library.get

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Get one tracked type library' – no indication of whether it's read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. The term 'tracked' is ambiguous. This is insufficient for a get operation that likely involves session context (given session_id parameter).

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?

Single sentence is concise, but it's under-specified rather than efficient. For a tool with 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, more content is needed. It earns no bonus for being short while providing insufficient information.

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 the tool has 2 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. The agent lacks understanding of what a 'tracked' type library is, what the return value looks like, and how session_id relates to the operation. Sibling tools like type_library.list and type_archive.get suggest a broader ecosystem that isn't connected here.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate for two undocumented parameters. It adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. session_id and type_library_id are not explained, and the agent doesn't know where to find type_library_id values (maybe from type_library.list or type_library.load).

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 'Get one tracked type library', which is a specific verb (get) and resource (type library). However, it doesn't clarify what 'tracked' means or distinguish it from siblings like type_library.create, type_library.load, type_library.list, which suggests different operations on type libraries. The purpose is clear but lacks differentiation detail.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes type_library.list, type_library.create, type_library.load, but the description provides no hints on when to use get vs list or load. Agent has no way to decide.

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