bookshelf_get_config_indexer

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

The readOnlyHint annotation states the tool is read-only, and the description's 'List' is consistent. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as scope, return format, or side effects (none expected). It does not describe any limits, pagination, or other useful details.

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 (three words), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It does not earn its place because it leaves too much ambiguity about the resource and action. A single vague sentence is not an example of good conciseness when essential information is missing.

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 low complexity (0 params, read-only annotation, output schema exists), the description should still clearly state what the tool does. It only says 'List config indexer,' which is insufficient to understand the resource or the purpose, especially since the name and verb conflict. The output schema may provide return details, but the description does not explain the operation clearly.

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 no parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, 0 parameters sets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema already conveys all necessary param info. No penalty is applied for the vague resource description here.

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 uses the verb 'List' and the resource 'config indexer', but it is vague and ambiguous. It does not clarify whether this returns a list of config indexer items or a single configuration object, and the tool name 'get_config_indexer' conflicts with the verb 'List'. It fails to distinguish from related tools like bookshelf_get_config_indexer_by_id.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or how it differs from alternatives such as bookshelf_get_config_indexer_by_id or bookshelf_list_indexer. No context or exclusions are provided.

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