get_library_items

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

With no annotations, the description must rely on itself. It implies a read operation ('list'), but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, caching, or response size limits. The pagination hint is a positive but minimal transparency.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and key feature (pagination). It is concise and efficient, though it could include a bit more context without losing brevity.

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 there is no output schema and five parameters, the description is minimal. It does not describe return values, error handling, or default behaviors beyond pagination. For a list tool with pagination, more completeness is expected.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates the pagination concept already captured by limit and offset defaults.

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 tool lists items in a library and explicitly calls out pagination, which is a key feature. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_libraries' (list libraries) and 'get_media_details' (single item details).

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 mentions 'useful for large libraries,' hinting at when to use pagination, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to other list tools on the server. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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