galbook_gallery

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully enumerates what is reported (endings, routes, CG, read ratio), but never states that this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, nor how defaults for book/agent are applied server-side.

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 short fragments with zero padding, and the key content categories are front-loaded. The extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify read-only behavior, defaulting, and the shape/scope of the progress report. It only lists result categories, leaving an agent without enough to confidently distinguish this from galbook_status or galbook_profile.

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 100% and both parameters (book slug, agent player name) are fully documented in the schema, including that they may be omitted when server defaults exist. The description adds no additional meaning about them, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 phrase 'Collection progress: endings, routes, CG, read ratio' names a resource domain (collection/completion stats) and enumerates its contents, so an agent can infer it reports gallery/unlock progress. However, there is no verb and no explicit statement that it retrieves progress for a specific book, leaving the scope partially to inference from the name 'gallery' and the sibling 'galbook_books'.

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 guidance on when to call this versus siblings such as galbook_status, galbook_books, or galbook_profile, and no stated prerequisites. An agent must guess whether this is a per-book completion view or a global summary.

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