get_library_ids

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the schema by revealing that absent IDs are equivalent to removal and that Simkl wipes stored ratings on removal, which is valuable behavioral context. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but those are less critical for this simple read-style tool.

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 two crisp sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the deletion-reconciliation context is provided in a compact supporting sentence.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description covers the main behavioral context and interpretation rules well. The only real gap is the unexplained 'type' parameter, which prevents a fully self-sufficient definition.

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 single optional 'type' parameter has no schema description (0% coverage) and the description never mentions it. The agent is left without guidance on what values it accepts or how it affects the returned IDs, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 specific verb-resource pair: returns every Simkl ID in the library, and explicitly narrows scope with 'and nothing else.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_library tool, which presumably returns fuller library objects.

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?

The description gives a concrete use case—'the cheap half of deletion reconciliation'—and explains how to interpret missing IDs. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name an alternative, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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