get_library_usage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It correctly indicates a read-only operation (getting a count) with no side effects mentioned. However, it lacks details such as whether the count includes linked files, trashed items, or requires specific permissions. The description is not misleading, but it is thin on behavioral nuances.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and entirely to the point, embodying conciseness.

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 such a simple tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It states what the tool does and implies the return value (the count). It doesn't elaborate on edge cases or response format, but given the simplicity, this is acceptable. It slightly misses on explaining what 'uses' means, but overall adequate.

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 input schema already describes the single parameter (libraryId) as 'Library (file) ID to check usage for', which has 100% coverage. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond that, only clarifying that the result is the number of files. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and the target/resource ('the number of files that use this library'). It is concise and understandable, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool get_library_file_references, which could also relate to usage. Still, the focus on 'number of files' sets it apart.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need a count of files using a particular library. However, it does not provide explicit usage guidance, such as when not to use it or which alternative to consider (e.g., get_library_file_references for detailed references). The context is inferable but not stated.

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