list_runtime_libraries

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing pagination ('paginates the API for you'), default limit, and the exact return fields (modules, total, count, page, limit). It also states 'Read-only' reinforcing the annotation. This is rich behavioral context that aids agent decision-making without contradicting the 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, front-loaded with purpose and usage, and each sentence serves a distinct function: purpose, usage, filtering, pagination, and return fields. There is no redundancy or fluff. It is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 simple read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what it lists, how filtering works, pagination behavior, default limit, and return structure. It also orients the agent to its role in the workflow. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both q and limit are documented in the schema. The description repeats the q semantics almost verbatim and adds slight context about pagination and limit affecting response size. This is baseline 3 given high schema coverage; it adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool lists executable Algenta runtime libraries with engine and public functions, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly positions itself as the discovery step before execute_runtime_library, which distinguishes it from that sibling. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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?

It explicitly names the companion tool execute_runtime_library and describes this as the discovery step before it, giving clear guidance on when to use it. It also mentions pagination behavior, which helps agents decide if they need to adjust limit. This is explicit usage guidance with a named alternative.

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