get_library

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavior disclosure. It correctly implies a non-destructive 'list' operation, but does not mention pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or potential absence of results. For a simple read tool this is acceptable, but richer context (e.g., returning a paginated array) would improve transparency.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes to meaning; there is no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and scope. It does not explicitly describe return format or pagination, but the schema parameter description helps fill that gap. Overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly in most cases.

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 only parameter, 'page', is fully described in the input schema with type, purpose, and default. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, but since schema coverage is 100%, the 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('audiobooks in the user's Audible library'), clearly indicating a read-only browse operation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_audiobooks (search across catalog) and get_wishlist (items saved to wishlist), so an agent can immediately tell what this tool does.

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 clearly conveys the context of use: browsing audiobooks the user owns. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, the scope ('user's Audible library') is distinct enough from the sibling names that an agent can infer when to invoke it. There are no exclusions or prerequisites stated, but the context is unambiguous.

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