get_library_file_references

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any limitations (e.g., only direct references vs. transitive usage). This lack of context is a notable gap for a tool without 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 exceptionally concise: one sentence of eight words that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, earning every word.

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 tool with one parameter, the description provides a basic understanding of the return value ('all file references'), but there is no output schema and no elaboration on pagination, response format, or edge cases. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps due to the absence of output schema and annotations.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'libraryId' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's function: 'Get all file references that use this library' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_library_usage, which could also be used to retrieve library usage information.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes get_library_usage and get_file_libraries, which may be similar, but the description offers no comparison or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is the right choice.

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