bookshelf_get_config_metadataprovider

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as response structure, pagination, or side effects. It is entirely uninformative beyond the annotation.

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?

While the description is extremely short, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It fails to earn its place because it merely restates the tool name without adding useful content. The single sentence does not provide enough information to be considered well-structured.

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?

Despite having an output schema and readOnlyHint, the description is completely inadequate. It gives no indication of what a 'config metadataprovider' is, what the returned data looks like, or how it relates to similar tools. The description leaves the agent with no meaningful understanding of the tool's purpose or output.

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 schema fully covers parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description does not introduce any misleading parameter information, and since there are no parameters, it cannot add further meaning.

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 'List config metadataprovider' is essentially a restatement of the tool name, with 'List' substituted for 'get'. It does not clarify what the tool actually does or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'bookshelf_get_config_metadataprovider_by_id' or 'bookshelf_update_config_metadataprovider'. The verb 'List' implies returning multiple items, but the resource name suggests a single config, creating ambiguity.

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. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. The phrase 'List config metadataprovider' offers no situational cues.

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