bookshelf_list_remotepathmapping

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates the safe read-only nature, and the description is consistent with that. However, it adds no extra behavioral context, such as whether the response includes all fields, pagination behavior, or ordering. No contradiction exists.

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 a single, short sentence that is entirely waste-free and front-loaded. It communicates the core operation without any filler or redundant information.

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 simple list operation with no parameters, an output schema provided, and a read-only annotation, the description is sufficient to guide an agent. It does not elaborate on the resource's meaning, but that is not essential for invoking a list operation.

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, and the description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate. With 100% schema coverage on an empty schema, the baseline of 4 applies without needing compensation.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'remotepathmapping', making the action obvious. It distinguishes from mutation tools and the singular 'get' operation, though it lacks any additional scope detail such as 'all' or filtering criteria.

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 like bookshelf_get_remotepathmapping or other list tools. No explicit when-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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