bookmark_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a read-only listing behavior and the scope ('all saved bookmarks'), but it does not mention output format, ordering, pagination, or potential volume. This is minimum viable transparency for a simple list tool.

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 sentence with no wasted words. The action and resource are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable and easy to parse for an agent.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description provides the essential action and scope, but gaps remain: no mention of what data is returned for each bookmark, no note on sorting or limits, and no context contrasting with bookmark_search. Given the sibling set, a short usage hint would improve completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4 because there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the schema, and no parameter ambiguity exists.

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 specific resource ('all saved bookmarks'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like bookmark_search (which implies querying/filtering) and bookmark_add/delete (which are mutations). The scope 'all' is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus bookmark_search or history_search. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate choice solely from the tool name and sibling names.

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