essay.shelf.get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two-phase protocol, that draft returns a label while confirm returns the pack, and the refusal condition for another essay's shelf. It stops short of stating whether phase two has side effects (locking, consuming, or delivering the pack) or what permissions are needed.

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?

Four short sentences, no filler, and the two-step constraint is front-loaded ahead of the per-phase return values. The telegraphic style is slightly fragmented but every sentence carries 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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers the protocol and the refusal case but omits the meaning of pack_id and any statement of side effects or state change on confirm. Adequate to attempt a call, not adequate to call it confidently.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly supplies the confirmPhase vocabulary ("Draft" vs "Confirm") and ties essay_id to the returned label, but pack_id is left entirely unexplained, so one of the two required parameters remains opaque.

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 verb/resource pair (get on an essay shelf) is stated and the two return modes are named, but "shelf" and "pack" are never defined, so the agent knows the mechanics without knowing what it actually retrieves. It also never contrasts itself with the sibling essay.shelf.put, leaving the read/write split to inference.

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?

"Confirm two-step" implies the correct call sequence (draft first, then confirm), which is genuine usage guidance. However, no alternatives are named and no conditions for when to use this versus essay.shelf.put or essay.pack.validate are given.

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