get_libraries_by_id_opml

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the HTTP GET method and the path resource ('opml') but does not disclose additional behavioral context such as response format, auth requirements, or what 'opml' means in practice. 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?

The description is concise and logically structured: a one-line summary, the endpoint, and an args section. The first line is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the rest is economical and easy to parse.

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 one-parameter, read-only endpoint with full annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. An agent can determine the HTTP method, path, and required parameter. The main gap is the vague phrasing of the purpose, which keeps it from fully clarifying what the OPML response represents.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description minimally compensates by stating 'id: Path parameter.' This adds location information not present in the schema, but it does not explain that id represents a library identifier or what values are valid. The single parameter is simple enough that this is adequate but not rich.

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 states a verb and resource ('Get libraries opml') and includes the endpoint GET /api/libraries/{id}/opml, so an agent can infer the operation. However, 'libraries opml' is grammatically awkward and essentially restates the tool name; it does not clearly explain that this returns the OPML document for a specific library or distinguish it from the many other get_libraries_by_id_* tools.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_libraries_by_id, get_libraries_by_id_items, or get_libraries_by_id_download. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions provided, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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