bookshelf_list_history

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond a bare list of parameter names. It discloses nothing about pagination, filtering semantics, or response characteristics, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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 appropriately short, but the content is under-specified and poorly structured. The comma-separated parameter list is not formatted for readability and adds little value beyond the schema, so it is concise but not effective.

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 9 parameters, no required fields, an output schema, and similar sibling tools, the description is far from complete. It omits the nature of the history, the meaning of filters, and any guidance on when this list might differ from its siblings, making it inadequate for confident tool invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It lists parameters using camelCase (pageSize, sortKey) that do not match the schema's snake_case (page_size, sort_key), potentially confusing an agent. No parameter meaning, allowed values, or relationships are explained.

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 history' is essentially a restatement of the tool name, offering no specificity about what kind of history is being listed. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like bookshelf_list_history_since or bookshelf_list_history_author, making it a tautology.

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 context for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_history_since or list_history_author. It merely lists query parameters without explaining which scenarios warrant this generic history list.

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