lib_get_all_libraries

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 fully covered without the description. The description adds only the return shape (UUIDs and names), which is modestly useful since no output schema exists. No pagination, ordering, or size caveats are disclosed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the resource and the returned fields with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though there is no additional structure because there is nothing else to say.

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 read-only, zero-required-param list tool whose annotations cover safety, this is close to sufficient, and it even describes the return payload in the absence of an output schema. The gap is the absence of routing guidance among the several sibling library-UUID tools, which is the main thing an agent would need.

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% and the single instance_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the auto-selection rule and the list_instances pointer. The description adds nothing beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Get a list of all available component libraries with their UUIDs and names.' The word 'all' and 'list' distinguish it as a bulk enumeration rather than a single-record lookup. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from sibling UUID getters like lib_get_personal_library_uuid or lib_get_system_library_uuid.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It never mentions the alternatives (lib_get_personal_library_uuid, lib_get_project_library_uuid, lib_get_system_library_uuid) that an agent must choose between to fetch library identifiers. The 'all' phrasing offers an implicit contrast but no directive.

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