egw_books

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes a read-only listing operation and implies no side effects, but it does not describe the output format, ordering, or what 'available' means in practice.

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?

A single, well-front-loaded sentence that states the verb and resource immediately. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrasing.

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?

Given the tool's simple zero-parameter nature and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete for invocation purposes. The only minor gap is the ambiguity of 'available' — whether it means all known EGW writings or only those loaded in the current environment.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter detail for the description to add, and the schema already confirms an empty parameter set.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a resource ('available Ellen G. White writings and their citation abbreviations'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like egw_search and egw_get_chapter, which handle lookup and retrieval, not inventory.

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 when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are named. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer it is the right choice when it needs an inventory of EGW writings and abbreviations, especially given the sibling tool names.

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