infosys_books

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the enumeration is offline, results include page counts, and TwinCAT 2 books are filtered out — useful scope context that the annotations do not convey.

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 definition is front-loaded, leading with the verb and resource before pivoting to parameter hints. It is dense and information-rich, though the em-dash construction and inline parameter notes make it slightly less scannable than it could be.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description still notes the page-count field and scope exclusions. Combined with pattern/category guidance, an agent has nearly everything needed; only the 'limit' parameter's effect is unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does for two of three params: 'pattern is a glob on the slug' with concrete examples ('tcplclib_*', '*json*'), and category with its full set of valid values. Only 'limit' is left undocumented, which is a minor gap against the otherwise strong compensation.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus a precise resource ('Infosys books (documentation sets) of the Help Viewer package installed with TwinCAT') and scope ('offline, one index of every book, with page counts'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like infosys_search, infosys_get_page, and infosys_index, which retrieve content rather than enumerate 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?

The description gives strong scoping signals — 'offline' and 'TwinCAT 2 books are excluded' — which imply when the tool applies. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over alternatives such as infosys_index or infosys_search, so usage is only inferred rather than stated.

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