bookshelf_list_author

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read operation, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, ordering, or what is returned. It merely restates the operation without disclosing any traits beyond what annotations already convey.

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 only two words, which is under-specified and essentially tautological with the tool name. While it is short, it lacks substantive content and does not earn its place beyond repeating the obvious.

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 presence of an output schema and readOnly annotation helps fill in some context, making this a minimally viable description. However, it is incomplete because it does not explain scope, potential edge cases, or how this list differs from similar author-related tools.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% by default. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 since there is nothing to document; the description does not need to add 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 'author', which clearly identifies this as a listing operation for author records. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like bookshelf_get_author or bookshelf_lookup_author, and the singular 'author' slightly weakens clarity.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bookshelf_get_author or bookshelf_lookup_author. The description simply says 'List author' with no context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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