live_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose real behavioral traits: it reads the iCloud-synced live library rather than a snapshot, and it degrades to listing exported .noteful files when Noteful for Mac is absent. That environmental dependency is exactly the kind of thing an agent otherwise cannot know. It stops short of stating read-only/side-effect status or refresh/caching behavior.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the query semantics and the fallback caveat. No padding. Slightly clipped phrasing in the opening line ('Folder / notebook tree...') costs a little clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape does not need spelling out, and the description usefully covers the live-ref format. The gaps are `include_archived` being undefined and the absence of any disambiguation from `library_tree`, which for a tool with a near-duplicate sibling is a meaningful omission.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains `query` (optional, case-insensitive, matches folder path or title), which is genuinely useful, but `include_archived` is never mentioned anywhere, leaving one of two parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: a folder/notebook tree of the *live* Noteful library, with page counts and 'live:<id>' refs. The 'live' qualifier meaningfully separates it from static/exported output, though it never names the near-identical sibling `library_tree`, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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 line about 'live:<id>' being 'usable by every read tool' implies a workflow (fetch ids here, then pass to read/render tools) and the fallback case is stated. But there is no explicit rule for choosing this over `library_tree`, `list_notebooks`, or `notebook_info`, which are the obvious alternatives.

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