list_libraries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It makes the operation a read-only list, names the scope ('configured' libraries), and specifies the returned fields and the significance of the _id. It does not explicitly describe the summary-vs-full-record behavior of the detailed parameter, though that is documented in the input schema.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the first states the action and output fields, and the second provides the most important usage fact. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it enumerates the output fields and points out why the tool matters. It stops short of explicitly stating the summary default and that detailed=true swaps to full records, but the input schema covers that behavior.

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% for the single optional 'detailed' parameter, so the schema already explains its meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable under the high-coverage baseline of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the configured Tdarr libraries') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it does. It does not explicitly differentiate from the singular get_library sibling, although the plural 'configured libraries' and the dbID note make the role mostly clear.

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 second sentence gives a concrete use case: this tool returns the library _id/dbID that every other library and file tool needs, so an agent should call it first when it needs identifiers. It provides clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use instructions or a named alternative such as get_library.

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