list_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return payload (source URL and fetch time), which clarifies this is a read-only listing. However it says nothing about ordering, result limits, or that a query narrows results rather than replacing the list. Adequate but thin for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the actor (pulpie), the resource, and the returned fields with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (2 optional params, no nesting) and both an output schema and full parameter descriptions exist, so the description needn't explain returns. It is nearly complete, missing only a statement about result scope/ordering or how it relates to search_library.

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 both 'query' (title/URL/path substring match) and 'directory' (absolute folder vs global library) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('List') and a specific resource ('Markdown docs saved by pulpie') and names the returned fields. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely-named sibling search_library, leaving the list-vs-search boundary to inference.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The nearby sibling search_library handles filtered retrieval and the tool itself accepts a 'query' filter, but the description never says when to call this instead of search_library or whether this returns the entire library. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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