bookshelf_get_indexer_schema

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates safeness, and the description simply says 'List', which aligns. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotation—no mention of output format, response structure, or relationship to other operations. No contradiction exists, but there is zero extra value.

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 a single short sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded with the action and resource. It wastes no words, though it could arguably include a bit more detail. Given the tool's simplicity, the length is appropriate.

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?

This is a straightforward read-only tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, so complexity is low. However, the description lacks context about the schema's purpose (e.g., that it defines fields for creating/updating an indexer). This missing context makes the description minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 the description has no parameter details to add. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for no parameters. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none.

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 indexer schema' clearly identifies the resource as the schema for indexers, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_indexer' or 'list_indexer' by referencing 'schema'. However, 'List' could imply a collection rather than a single schema definition, creating slight 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases (e.g., retrieving fields before creating/updating an indexer), or exclusions. The description is purely declarative with no contextual direction.

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