bookshelf_list_language

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

The description adds no behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, which already indicates a safe read operation. It does not mention return format, pagination, filtering, or any constraints. There is no contradiction with annotations, but no additional transparency is offered.

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 under-specified rather than concise. The two-word sentence 'List language.' repeats the tool name and provides no useful information, failing to earn its place. It is not an efficient summary but an empty one.

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?

Even though the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is too vague to be complete. It does not clarify what 'language' refers to, whether it returns all languages or specific ones, or how it relates to sibling tools like bookshelf_get_language. An agent would be uncertain about its exact purpose.

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 cannot add parameter-specific meaning. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because there are no parameters to document; the schema fully covers parameter semantics.

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 language.' is a direct restatement of the tool name, providing no additional detail about the scope or type of language listing. It is a tautology rather than a meaningful explanation, and does not clearly differentiate from related tools like bookshelf_get_language.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when to prefer list_language over get_language. No context or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name and sibling tool names.

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