pbi_list_bookmarks

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining edge-case behaviors: bookmarks missing from the index are invisible, and index entries without files break the panel, both silently. This is valuable context that annotations do not provide.

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 concise and front-loaded, with each sentence adding meaningful information. It is slightly cryptic due to Spanish phrasing and domain-specific terms, but remains appropriately sized and structured.

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, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose and important edge cases, though it leaves 'index' and 'disk' somewhat undefined, which may be clear only in context.

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 clarify beyond the schema. The baseline of 4 applies, and no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 clearly states the tool lists report bookmarks and identifies inconsistencies between index and disk. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pbi_create_bookmark and pbi_delete_bookmark by focusing on enumeration and inconsistency detection.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for inspecting bookmarks, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with other bookmark-related tools.

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