bookshelf_get_config_development

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation, but the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not describe return format, pagination, or any side effects. While there is no contradiction with the annotation, the description is purely tautological and provides no additional transparency.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, lacking clarity about what 'config development' means. It is concise but not optimally informative for an agent.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, so return details are covered elsewhere, but the description is insufficient to understand the tool's scope. It fails to clarify what 'config development' refers to or how it relates to sibling operations, making it incomplete 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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Per the scoring guideline, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when parameters are absent, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'config development', giving a basic sense of the operation. However, the phrasing is awkward and does not clearly differentiate it from the sibling tool bookshelf_get_config_development_by_id, which also relates to config development. The purpose is understandable but not precisely framed.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bookshelf_get_config_development_by_id or bookshelf_update_config_development. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent receives no direction on selection among similar tools.

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