Batch Resolve Libraries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, destructive, idempotent, and openWorld hints. The description adds valuable behavioral details: max 20 per call, registry-only (no npm/PyPI/crates), and returns results for each library. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, details, usage context, and alternatives. No redundancy, front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned ('results for each library'). It covers purpose, usage, limitations, and alternatives, making it complete for a 1-parameter batch tool with rich annotations.

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 coverage is 100% with full description and examples for the only parameter libraryNames. The description reinforces constraints (max 20) but does not add new semantic information beyond the 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 'Resolve multiple library names to IDs and docs URLs in a single call,' using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like gt_resolve_library and gt_auto_scan by mentioning scope and fallback behavior.

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?

Explicit instructions on when to use (when you have a list and need IDs before gt_get_docs) and when not to (registry-only, no external fallback). Alternatives are named with clear criteria: gt_resolve_library for single with fallback, gt_auto_scan for scanning actual dependency files.

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