get_libraries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature, that OpenSCAD is not required, that standard paths and OPENSCADPATH are searched, and that it lists subdirectories with file counts, README presence, and main entry files. This covers key behavioral traits without contradicting anything.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with a one-sentence summary. It uses paragraphs effectively and every sentence adds value. The Returns section is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but it does not bloat excessively.

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?

This is a simple, read-only tool with a rich output schema. The description provides enough context about what paths are searched, what data is returned, and the read-only nature. It lacks edge-case details like error handling, but for this complexity level it is adequately complete.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds that the only argument, ctx, is used for MCP logging, which is meaningful but minimal. No further parameter semantics are needed.

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 opens with 'Discover installed OpenSCAD libraries on the system,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like check_openscad, rendering, and model management tools. The scope is further clarified by mentioning standard library paths and OPENSCADPATH.

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 implies when to use the tool: to discover libraries on the system, including via OPENSCADPATH. It explicitly notes it is read-only and does not require OpenSCAD to be installed, which signals a low-risk discovery operation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls 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.