Get library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this lists a profile's saved items, but it does not mention pagination behavior or return format.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler. The parenthetical '(bookmarks/favourites)' adds disambiguating value without bloating the description.

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 list tool with no required parameters, this description plus the annotations and schema defaults is nearly sufficient. It could mention pagination or the shape of returned items, but those are not necessary for correct tool selection and basic invocation.

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 description gives meaning to profile_id by tying it to the profile's library, which partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. Limit and offset are not explicitly explained, though their conventional pagination meaning and the schema constraints make them reasonably inferable.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('items in a profile's library'), then clarifies with '(bookmarks/favourites)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools about watch progress, collections, and library mutations.

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 intended use is clear: retrieve saved bookmark/favourite items for a profile. It does not explicitly name alternatives like nuvio_add_to_library or nuvio_remove_from_library, but the read/list vs. mutation distinction is obvious from the sibling tool names.

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