galbook_books

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

No annotations are supplied, but 'List' plus the zero-parameter schema makes the read-only nature self-evident. The description adds the useful disclosure of what each entry contains (slug, title, engine, routes), though it says nothing about ordering, filtering, or size of the result set.

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?

One short sentence plus its Chinese equivalent, with the resource front-loaded and the returned fields compactly parenthesized. Nothing is padded and nothing needs reordering.

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 no annotations, the description carries the whole burden, and it does cover the essential return fields for a zero-argument listing tool. It stops short of noting ordering, count, or what a caller should do with the returned slug next, which would fully close the gap.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The parenthetical field list instead documents return shape, which is a bonus rather than a substitute for parameter docs.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List playable books') and even enumerates the fields returned (slug, title, engine, routes), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. No sibling is named as an alternative, but no sibling overlaps this discovery role, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. 'call before galbook_new or galbook_load to find a slug'), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the discovery entry point for the galbook_* family.

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