st.mvu.entries

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

With no annotations, the 'List' verb signals a read-only operation, and the mention of the exact disable/enabled storage field reveals what the output emphasizes. It does not disclose whether permissions or state changes are involved, but for a list tool the main behavioral trait is reasonably conveyed.

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 with no filler; the purpose and scope are front-loaded. The phrase 'exact disable/enabled storage field' is slightly awkward but adds substantive detail without bloat.

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?

The tool has two undocumented optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description only explains the general purpose and one output attribute. An agent cannot infer what 'book' or 'includeContent' mean or what the returned data structure is, so the definition is too sparse for reliable invocation.

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 input schema offers no descriptions for 'book' or 'includeContent', and the description does not reference either parameter. At 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent with no information about what values to pass.

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 verb 'List' plus the resource 'MVU-related worldbook entries' states exactly what the tool returns, and the qualifier 'MVU-related' distinguishes it from the general st.worldbook.entries sibling. The additional detail about the disable/enabled storage field pins down the output's distinguishing value.

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 when-to-use or alternatives are given. The MVU-related qualifier implies this is the tool for inspecting MVU-specific entry flags, but the description does not tell the agent when to prefer it over st.worldbook.entries or how it relates to st.mvu.entry.set_enabled.

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