List library work

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

The description explains the non-obvious behavior behind destructiveHint=true: listing expires stale leases and can update work state, which is exactly the context the annotations cannot convey. It also bounds responsibility ('the server does not perform the Librarian's model work'). It stops short of stating permission or auth requirements for the lease-expiry side effect, so not a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by routing, side effects, and return contents in a logical order, with no filler. It is dense with domain jargon ('manifest dispositions', 'waiting-client status') and the closing server-scope sentence is slightly tangential, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

With no output schema and a destructive mutation in play, the description does the heavy lifting: it summarizes return contents (run revision, work states, dispositions, waiting-client status) and discloses the state-changing side effect. Only the auth/permission prerequisites for lease expiry and the end-of-pagination condition remain unspecified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (limit, state, cursor, run_id) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes this at a high level via 'one cursor page' and 'for a run', adding no syntax, defaults, or filter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb (List), a precise resource (Librarian assignment counts plus one cursor page of work), and scopes it to a run. It immediately separates itself from the two nearest siblings, claim_library_work and get_library_activity, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

'Use to inspect readiness before claim_library_work' gives an explicit precondition and downstream tool, and 'use get_library_activity for aggregate library metrics' names the alternative with the condition that selects it. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are stated rather than implied.

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