galbook_saves

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

No annotations are provided, so the description has to carry the whole behavioral burden, and it says nothing about defaults. The schema notes that book and agent fall back to server-side defaults, but the description never explains whether listing is scoped to one book, one agent, or everything visible to the caller.

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 two short bilingual fragments with zero filler and the verb-resource phrase front-loaded. It is efficient, but the extreme brevity is closer to under-specification than to disciplined concision.

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 two optional parameters that silently fall back to server defaults, the description should explain what a listing returns or what scope it covers. Nothing beyond the bare purpose is stated, so an agent has to guess at how to interpret the result.

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 100%, and both parameters (book slug, agent name) are fully documented in the schema, including the note that they can be omitted when server defaults exist. The description adds nothing beyond that, 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 description gives a verb plus a resource ("List save slots"), so the basic action is inferable. However, it does not say whose save slots are listed, what a slot contains, or how this differs from galbook_save / galbook_load / galbook_rewind, which all operate on the same save concept.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though galbook_load and galbook_save sit right next to it in the sibling set. An agent gets no signal for deciding between listing saves and loading or creating one.

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