Get shared libraries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'Body fields: none', which clarifies that no request body is expected, and the endpoint method (GET) reinforces read-only behavior. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or any other behavioral details beyond what annotations already provide.

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: one sentence stating the purpose, the endpoint, a note about no body, and a reference link. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no fluff. Every element 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 description is adequate for a simple read-only listing operation, given the annotations cover safety. However, it does not mention that the operation returns a list of shared libraries, nor does it explain pagination behavior (though the schema mentions offset/limit). The absence of an output schema and lack of return/listing details leaves some ambiguity, but the core action is clear.

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 description includes the endpoint with {planId}, which implicitly identifies the required path parameter, but it does not explain its meaning or format. The query parameters (offset, limit) are not mentioned in the description at all; they appear only in the schema's query description. With schema coverage at 50%, the description does not compensate for the missing query semantics, leaving an agent with incomplete parameter understanding.

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 starts with 'Get shared libraries', a clear verb+resource that precisely names the operation. It also includes the full endpoint path, which disambiguates it from siblings like xmatters_get_a_shared_library (singular) and the various create/modify/delete operations. An agent can immediately understand this is a list operation for all shared libraries in a plan.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not say 'use this to list all shared libraries for a plan' or contrast it with get_a_shared_library. It also does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The naming implies plural vs singular, but this is not explicitly stated.

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