get_library_items

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that pagination is supported and useful for large libraries, but it does not describe return shape, ordering behavior, or performance characteristics beyond that. With annotations carrying the main burden, this is adequate 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 a single concise sentence with no wasted text. The pagination capability is front-loaded and directly actionable.

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 listing tool with a fully described schema and read-only annotations, the essential invocation details are present. However, with no output schema, the description could say more about what item data is returned or how it relates to search_media and get_recently_added. It is minimally adequate but leaves noticeable gaps.

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 the input schema already documents all five parameters, including limit, offset, type, sort, and libraryKey. The description only reinforces pagination and does not add syntax or usage meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb and resource: list items in a library. It also mentions pagination, which distinguishes it from some sibling operations, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related tools such as search_media or get_recently_added.

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 only usage hint is the parenthetical 'useful for large libraries,' which implies pagination relevance but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over search_media, get_recently_added, or get_libraries. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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