Thanks and love the feedback. I know the dev space is full of cliche and overused terms. It's tough to not use them even when you're aware. I don't see it as a hard rule to avoid them and I think in some cases it's okay.

For example, if the core goal of the library is to achieve <2kB and you've predetermined a tight API scope (most likely based on existing references) then IMO it's okay to call it tiny/lightweight. It works out with libraries that are a providing a set of primitives to solve a generalized problem. I'm sure some people appreciate like I do when a library clearly indicates a core goal that was achieved (i.e. size) right in the top-level description.