get_library_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the pagination behavior ('with pagination') and its relevance to large libraries, but no other behavioral details like rate limits or response format. With annotations present, 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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('List items in a library') and efficiently conveys the key behavioral aspect (pagination) and a practical use case (large libraries). No waste 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 read-only list tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states the primary action and the pagination feature. However, it does not explicitly describe the return format or list any alternatives, leaving a small gap for a brand-new agent.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description only reinforces the concept of pagination, which the schema already details via limit/offset. No additional semantics are provided, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List' and the resource 'items in a library', with pagination as a distinguishing behavior. While it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_playlist_items, the resource is specific enough. Lacks explicit sibling contrast, hence not a 5.

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 phrase 'useful for large libraries' provides a clear context for when to use this tool, implying it handles large result sets efficiently. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name any alternative tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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