get_library_contents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that library_name must match exactly and gives sort options and limit default. However, it omits behavioral traits like error handling for missing libraries, pagination behavior, or read-only nature.

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 brief and well-structured, with purpose stated first, followed by bullet points for sort options. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers essential usage (name matching, sort, limit). It omits error cases but is sufficient for a browsing tool. The output schema likely documents return values, so lack of return description is acceptable.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining library_name (exact match, reference to get_libraries), sort (enumerating valid options), and limit (default 50). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 states the tool browses contents of a specific Plex library, using the verb 'browse' and resource 'contents of a specific Plex library'. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on library contents rather than collections or specific media types, with guidance on exact name matching.

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?

It provides clear context by specifying that library_name must match exactly and advises using get_libraries to see available names. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct alternatives among siblings.

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