campus_mendeley_list

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds two useful behaviors: pagination via nextCursor and the security note that library content is untrusted data. It doesn't discuss rate limits or response shape, but with read-only annotations and low mutation risk, the added context is meaningful.

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 three short sentences, each with a distinct purpose: scope, pagination, and data trust. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read-only list operation with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers target, pagination, and a key security caveat. It would be more complete if it explicitly tied nextCursor to the cursor input parameter and referenced alternative group-related tools, but these are relatively minor gaps.

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 partially compensates by introducing the nextCursor continuation mechanism, which is not in the schema. However, it never explicitly maps nextCursor to the actual `cursor` parameter, and it adds nothing beyond the schema for `limit`. This is adequate but has a clear mapping ambiguity.

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 specific action and resource: 'List references in the connected user Mendeley library.' This clearly identifies the root user library as the scope and is distinguishable from siblings like campus_mendeley_list_groups and campus_mendeley_list_group_documents.

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 gives clear context for use: list references in the connected user's Mendeley library and continue pagination via nextCursor. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use group-document tools, but the scope wording makes the intended context clear.

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