Shepherd Bible API

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return content (books and chapter counts) but does not address edge cases like invalid translation codes or return ordering. This is a minimal but non-contradictory addition.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently states the core functionality.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It mentions 'books and chapter counts' but does not specify the structure (e.g., array of objects with names and counts, ordering). For a simple listing tool this may suffice, but it leaves room for ambiguity.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for the 'translation' parameter. The description only indirectly clarifies that the parameter identifies a translation, without specifying expected format (e.g., code like 'KJV') or giving examples. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate more.

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 returns books and chapter counts for a translation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bible_chapter or bible_verse, which focus on specific content.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for a translation' implies usage context, but there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose for different needs.

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

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

The description adds the behavioral detail that the response includes all verses, groupings, and red letter data, which is useful context. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. No additional behavioral traits like error handling or format specifics are disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence ('Return all verses...') that directly states the tool's function without wasted words.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description does explain the main contents of the return value, but 'groupings' and 'red letter data' are vague, and there is no guidance on formatting of parameters or error handling. It is minimally adequate but not rich.

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 schema has 3 parameters (book, chapter, translation) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameter meaning or format. It only mentions 'chapter' generically, leaving book and translation completely ambiguous.

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 the specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource as a Bible chapter, including the scope of what is returned (all verses, groupings, red letter data). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bible_verse (single verse) and bible_search (search).

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 implies this tool is used when you need a full chapter's data, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus bible_verse or other siblings, nor provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, making the safe read nature clear. The description adds minimal context ('keyword or exact match') but does not explain behavior such as pagination, result formatting, or what 'exact match' means. No contradiction with annotations.

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 one short sentence that directly states the core function. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information.

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?

With no output schema and only a minimal description, the tool lacks essential context about return values, pagination behavior, or the meaning of 'type'. Annotations cover safety, but the description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand what to expect from a search.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description only hints at the 'type' parameter via 'keyword or exact match'. It does not explain the required 'q' parameter (min length) or 'page' parameter (pagination), leaving the agent without enough semantic guidance to use parameters correctly.

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 it searches for verses by keyword or exact match, giving a specific verb and resource. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like bible_verse (which likely fetches a specific verse) but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: you use this tool when you want to find verses by keyword rather than by reference. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus bible_verse or bible_chapter, nor any exclusions mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'all available' scope, implying no filtering, which is slightly useful. However, it does not disclose return format, ordering, or any other behavioral traits beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no fluff. Every word 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 simple, read-only list tool with no parameters and good annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It conveys the purpose clearly, and no output schema exists, but the return value (list of translations) is implicit in the tool's name and description.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema covers 100% of them (none). With no parameters to explain, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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 'Return all available Bible translations' uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('all available Bible translations'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like bible_books, bible_chapter, bible_search, and bible_verse.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or refer to sibling tools, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable output detail ('with red letter data if available'), which is not covered by annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action and outcome. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of tool name.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description only partially covers what an agent needs to know (e.g., return structure, parameter conventions). Annotations cover safety, but the description does not fully compensate for missing schema info, though it is adequate for basic use.

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 0% and the description provides no parameter-level guidance. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but no format or constraint details (e.g., book name abbreviations, translation codes) are given, leaving the agent to rely on schema types alone.

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 ('Return') and resource ('a specific verse'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like bible_chapter (whole chapter) or bible_search. The mention of 'red letter data' adds specificity without ambiguity.

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 phrase 'specific verse' sets clear context for when to use this tool (single verse retrieval). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, though the sibling tool names provide implicit contrast.

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