list_all_chapters

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

The description discloses a notable behavioral trait: it paginates through all pages of the chapters endpoint, so long books are not truncated. This is beyond what annotations (none) provide and is valuable context for the agent. It also mentions the output format is a complete table, giving the agent expectations about the response shape.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose and distinguishing behavior are front-loaded, and the mention of pagination is concise and informative. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with 2 parameters and full schema coverage, the description is quite complete. It explains the table content and the pagination behavior. It could mention that audiobook_id is required, but the schema already handles that. The only minor gap is not describing what 'resume point' means, but that's a standard concept.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (audiobook_id and response_format). The description doesn't add much parameter-specific detail, but mentions the table fields (index, name, duration, resume point) which aligns with the response_format parameter's role. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 every chapter of an audiobook in a complete table with specific fields (index, name, duration, resume point). It distinguishes itself from truncated listing in the Spotify app, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need a complete, untruncated chapter listing for an audiobook. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context of walking all pages of the chapters endpoint makes the use case clear. No explicit alternatives are named, though siblings like get_audiobook_chapters exist.

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