has_file_libraries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavior. It does mention the return type (boolean), but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only check with no side effects. The verb 'check' implies non-mutating behavior, but it could be more explicit. This is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and return type. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or filler.

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 boolean check tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool checks, the return type, and the parameter is self-explanatory. A minor gap is that it doesn't reference related library tools, but this is not critical for such a simple operation.

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% and the single parameter `fileId` is already described as 'File ID to check'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 states the tool checks if a file uses component libraries and returns a boolean. This is a specific verb+resource+return type, and it distinguishes itself from the similar sibling `get_file_libraries` by returning a boolean rather than a list.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `get_file_libraries`. No context or exclusion criteria is offered, so an agent gets no help choosing between related tools.

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