bookmarks_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the line format (📁 folders, 🔖 bookmarks, ID/parent ID/index per line), the empty-folder message, the interleaving caveat when listing the whole tree, and the fact that IDs are profile-local and must not be reused. It never explicitly states the operation is read-only and non-mutating, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then output format, then parameter semantics. Every sentence carries information, though the run is a dense block rather than cleanly separated lines, making it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema present, almost everything an agent needs is here: scoping behavior, output shape, empty result, and the ID provenance chain. The only omission is pointing at bookmarks_search for non-structural queries.

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 coverage is only 50% (profile_id is a bare integer), and the description compensates fully: folder_id's effect on ordering and nesting is spelled out, and profile_id's origin (profiles_list) plus the profile-scoped ID constraint are explained. This is meaning the schema does not contain.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List browser bookmarks') and then distinguishes itself functionally: it is the ID-discovery tool that feeds bookmarks_update, bookmarks_delete, bookmarks_move and bookmarks_create. That makes it easy to separate from bookmarks_search and from the mutation siblings.

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?

It states the two operating modes explicitly — with folder_id you get direct children in order; without it you get the whole tree — and tells the agent to obtain profile_id from profiles_list. It never names bookmarks_search as the alternative for keyword lookup, so one routing decision is left to inference.

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