On the surface that seems correct. But let me go on a tangent. Brutalism is functional in the sense that a space is designed only with the task at hand in mind. In a narrow sense, a library should be a place to come to and read and borrow books. Nothing else matters, so bare concrete surfaces are the efficient ideal. But critics would justifiably point out that there's more to a library than that. It's a place of community, imagination, inspiration. If we see the purpose as fostering those things, then the architecture should be visually stimulating, culturally resonnating, architecturally consistent with the buildings around it, etc.

But this is a bit of a charicature of brutalism. In reality it does consider human experience, but it perhaps values different aspects of it. Brutalist paces are built to facilitate flows of people, to make it easy to get done what you need to. But it is also a reaction to traditional architecture styles which carries with them a lot of baggage: often certain social structures such as stratification, empire, patriarchy, racial inequality, etc. When we consider brutalism as an act of opposition to these, the humanistic intent behind it shines through, even though it make the building no more appealing.

Brutalist spaces can in my opinion be welcoming and inviting if furnished correctly. To me they have a nostalgic and hopeful connotation because I walked through them growing up. Nowadays they're a refreshing change from the kind of corporate glass and plastered concrete spaces of today.