get_all_bookmarks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it discloses almost nothing. It does not mention return shape, pagination, ordering, error behavior for invalid group_id, or empty-result semantics — leaving the agent to infer all behavior from the tool name.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words, and the core idea is front-loaded. It is appropriately brief for a one-parameter list tool, though the phrasing 'in group' is grammatically awkward and the brevity borders on under-specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. However, the description leaves ambiguity about the meaning of 'group' (organizational group vs. bookmark collection, given siblings like get_all_groups) and offers no guidance on pagination or empty results, making it adequate but incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented group_id parameter. It adds only the inference that group_id selects which group's bookmarks are returned; it does not explain what a 'group' is, where to obtain a valid group_id, or any format constraints.

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 verb ('Get'), a resource ('all bookmarks'), and a scope ('in group'), which clearly conveys this is a collection-listing operation. It is implicitly distinguished from siblings like get_bookmark_details (single item) and delete_bookmark, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 intended usage is implied by the name and description — call this when you need all bookmarks associated with a group_id. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over get_bookmark_details, nor any exclusion criteria or context about alternatives.

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