get_user_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the action but does not mention response shape, pagination, read-only semantics, authentication needs, or any other behavioral constraints.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence plus a status mapping. It leans nothing irrelevant and a state can parse the key purpose in a single phrase.

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?

The tool has a relatively simple four-parameter shape with good schema coverage, but no output schema and no annotations. The description is adequate for selecting the tool but not quite complete for behavior: it doesn't explain what exactly is returned or how pagination appears in the response.

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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters and the status_ids mapping, so the schema is one hundred percent covered. The description adds the context that user_id refers to another user, but it does not add new field-level detail beyond that.

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 specific action and resource: getting another user's library, filtered by reading status. It clearly separates it from modern my own current-library style tools like get_my_library by explicitly saying 'another user's'.

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 gives a clear intended scenario ('another user's library'), but it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternatives like get_my_library. The routing is implied rather than taught.

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