get_my_library

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses pagination, the authenticated-user scope, and that all statuses are included, but it does not mention response shape, auth requirements, or empty-library behavior. It is adequate for a simple retrieval operation but not rich.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence containing all core signals: action, scope, resource, and pagination. It has no filler or 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 two-parameter retrieval operation with no output schema, this is largely complete: action, scope, resource, and pagination are all stated. The only real gap is not explicitly directing the agent to status-filtered sibling tools when narrower results are needed.

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%, and both limit and offset are already well-defined with defaults. The description's mention of 'paginated' mildly reinforces the parameter semantics but adds no new detail beyond the schema.

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 identifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('full library'), and the scope ('authenticated user's'), explicitly noting it includes all statuses. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_library and get_library_by_status.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this when you want the full library across all statuses, rather than a status-filtered view. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so an agent must infer the distinction from the description and sibling names.

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