bookshelf_get_config_naming_examples

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, side effects, or output format). It does not contradict the annotation, but it also provides no extra transparency 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose, but the appended parameter list is redundant (the schema already lists them) and inconsistent due to the case mismatch. It earns partial credit for brevity but loses points for the unnecessary and misleading list.

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?

With 13 optional parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand how to configure the query. The output schema exists, but it does not clarify parameter semantics. The description does not explain what constitutes a 'naming example' or how the parameters affect the result.

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 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. Instead, it lists parameter names in camelCase (renameBooks, replaceIllegalCharacters) that do not match the schema's snake_case names (rename_books, replace_illegal_characters). This mismatch could lead to incorrect invocation. The list also provides no meaning beyond the schema's property names.

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 specifies 'List config naming examples' with a clear verb and resource. This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like bookshelf_get_config_naming and bookshelf_get_config_naming_by_id, which likely return the actual configuration rather than examples.

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 purpose implies when to use (when you need naming examples), but the description does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. No guidance is provided for when to prefer this tool over related config naming tools.

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