get_user_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose two behavioral traits: it requires authentication ('authenticated') and it is paginated. However, it does not state return formats, error behavior, or whether it is strictly read-only (though 'Read' implies this). More detail would be valuable.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. It contains zero wasted words and efficiently conveys the essential purpose.

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 output schema is present, so return values are defined. The description gives enough context about the tool's purpose and scope for a simple paginated library reader, though it could mention the available sections (which are in the schema enum) and clarify the intended use case relative to siblings.

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%, so every parameter already has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond restating that it is paginated and library-specific, which meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 identifies the verb (Read), the resource (a user's music library), and the scope (authenticated, paginated section). Among siblings, this is the only tool specifically for accessing a user's own library, so it is distinct from search and recommendation tools.

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 phrase 'user's music library' implies it is for retrieving authenticated user content, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like music_search or get_recommendations. The context is clear enough for a human but not explicitly articulated.

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