bookshelf_list_manualimport

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already discloses the safe read-only nature. The description adds the existence of query parameters, hinting at filtering behavior, but does not explain the effects of those parameters or any edge cases. This is acceptable given the strong annotation, but minimal.

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 extremely concise, opens with the action verb, and uses a straightforward structure. It avoids unnecessary words, though the brevity sacrifices valuable detail.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify what 'manualimport' is, the semantics of the filter parameters, or the response contents. An output schema exists, but the overall context is still incomplete.

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. It only lists parameter names without explaining their meaning or behavior. The names are somewhat self-evident, but no details on how they filter or interact are given.

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 a clear action ('List') but the resource 'manualimport' is vague and not clearly defined. It does not differentiate from similar sibling list tools like bookshelf_list_importlist or bookshelf_list_importlistexclusion, which could be confused.

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 vs alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or mention of when to prefer this over other list tools are provided.

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