List Caslibs

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 description does not need to restate those. It adds a small amount of context by indicating the result is scoped to a CAS server, but it does not describe pagination, ordering, or any other behavioral details beyond the schema and 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It immediately identifies the action and resource without wasting words, which is ideal for agent consumption.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read-only listing operation with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema available. The description, combined with the structured metadata, provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, with both server_id and limit already described in the input schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 description states a clear verb and resource: 'List CAS libraries (caslibs) available on a CAS server.' It clarifies the scope (a specific CAS server) and the resource is distinct from sibling tools like list_cas_servers or list_castables. The use of 'available on a CAS server' reinforces that the server_id parameter is the scope qualifier.

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?

Usage context is only implied from the purpose: an agent would use this to enumerate caslibs on a given CAS server. There is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over siblings such as list_castables or list_compute_libraries, nor any mention of using list_cas_servers to discover valid server IDs first.

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