Get a shared library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the endpoint and a reference link but no additional behavioral details such as return format or error conditions. It is not contradictory, and the added context is minimal.

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 exceptionally concise with three short sentences, including the endpoint and a helpful reference link. Every sentence earns its place without fluff, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

For a simple read operation with one required path parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It includes the endpoint and a documentation reference. The only minor gap is not mentioning that query parameters are flexible but undocumented, though that is already in the schema. Given the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently 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 schema already documents the required path.libraryId and describes the query object (with no documented names but pagination behavior). The tool description does not add meaning beyond the endpoint showing {libraryId}, which is redundant with the schema. Since schema coverage is adequate, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get a shared library' and includes the exact API endpoint with {libraryId}, making the verb and resource specific. It is distinct from the sibling tool 'get_shared_libraries' which lists libraries, so purpose differentiation is clear.

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 this tool is used to retrieve a single shared library by ID, given the path parameter, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over the list endpoint or any alternative. No exclusions or context is provided, though the purpose is clear enough to infer usage.

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