list_chaptersList all 18 chapters of the Bhagavad Gita (Hindu scripture / Vedic text). Returns chapter number, Sanskrit name, transliteration, English meaning, summary, and verse count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying the exact output fields and the fixed number of chapters, which is beyond the annotation coverage. No contradictions.
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 efficient sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by concrete return details.
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?
Despite missing output schema, the description fully compensates by listing all returned fields. The tool is simple with no parameters, and the description covers everything needed for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, so baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details.
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 lists all 18 chapters of the Bhagavad Gita, specifying the exact resource and what fields are returned (chapter number, Sanskrit name, transliteration, English meaning, summary, verse count). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_chapter and get_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?
Although not explicitly stating when to use vs. alternatives, the purpose is clear: use for an overview of all chapters. The sibling tools are for single chapters or verses, so the context is implied and unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Individual tools have detailed descriptions and mostly distinct purposes, but the mix of domains (scripture, finance, data lookup) could confuse an agent about which tool to choose for a given task. However, within each subdomain, tools are clearly differentiated.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), some are noun_verb (entity_profile, recent_changes), and some are single verbs (forget, recall). The mix of snake_case with varied starting parts makes naming unpredictable.
With 23 tools but only 3 related to the server's stated purpose (Bhagavad Gita), the tool count is severely mismatched. The vast majority belong to data analytics and finance, making the set feel bloated and mis-scoped.
For a Bhagavad Gita server, only list_chapters, get_chapter, and get_verse are provided, missing obvious features like search, commentary comparison, or multiple translations. The other tools are irrelevant to the domain, leaving it extremely incomplete.