bookshelf_list_queue

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a read operation. The description adds only a list of parameter names, which duplicates schema information. It also uses camelCase (sortKey, pageSize) that conflicts with the snake_case schema (sort_key, page_size), potentially confusing the agent. No additional behavioral context is provided.

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 brief and front-loaded, but the parameter list largely repeats schema fields in a different casing. It is concise but not efficiently informative; every sentence should earn its place, and the second sentence adds limited value beyond the schema.

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 7 parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the queue contains, default behaviors, pagination semantics, or how the include flags affect results. While an output schema exists, the description still lacks necessary context for a correct 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameter meanings. It merely lists the names without describing what each does. For example, includeAuthor and includeBook are ambiguous—do they include related resources or filter by author/book presence? The naming mismatch further complicates interpretation.

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 clearly states 'List queue', which is a specific verb+resource pair. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like bookshelf_get_queue_status or bookshelf_get_queue_details, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only lists query parameters and does not mention appropriate contexts, exclusions, or related tools.

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