bookshelf_list_log

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context—it only lists query parameter names, which are already visible in the schema. It does not mention pagination behavior, defaults, or the nature of the log entries being listed.

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 very concise, with no wasted words. The structure is clear: a one-sentence purpose followed by a list of query params. However, it is under-specified, which prevents a higher score, but for sheer brevity and structure, it earns a 4.

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 tool has a simple interface (5 optional params, read-only) and an output schema, so some context is already provided by structured data. Yet the description fails to clarify what kind of log is being listed, how it differs from the sibling 'bookshelf_list_log_file', or what the response represents. This ambiguity makes the description incomplete even for a simple tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining the parameters, but it merely lists their names. The names ('page', 'pageSize', 'sortKey', 'sortDirection', 'level') give some hints about pagination and sorting, but there is no explanation of what 'level' refers to, what values are valid, or how sorting works. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently construct a request.

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 log' clearly states the verb and resource, so the core purpose is understandable. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool 'bookshelf_list_log_file' or any other log-related tool, which would be necessary for full 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer 'bookshelf_list_log' over 'bookshelf_list_log_file' or other list tools. It is purely a statement of what it does.

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