bookshelf_calendar

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a read-only operation. The description adds the operation names and parameter lists, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, error handling, or response format. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 concise and structured as a bulleted list of operations with their parameters. It is front-loaded with the general instruction to pass an operation and arguments dict. There is no wasted text, and the format is easy to scan.

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?

Given that the tool has an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is reasonably complete for a simple get/list tool. However, it does not explain the return values or any specific behavior like filtering or pagination. The parameter list is present but lacks semantic detail, so it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists the parameters for each operation (e.g., start, end, unmonitored, include_author) but does not explain their meaning or format. The description adds some value by mapping parameters to operations, but it does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly lists two operations: bookshelf_get_calendar(id) to fetch a single calendar and bookshelf_list_calendar(start, end, unmonitored, include_author) to list calendars. It specifies the resource (calendar) and the actions (get/list), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other bookshelf domains like media library or config.

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 description implies usage by listing the operations and their parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use one over the other or when to use this tool instead of a sibling. It provides no context on typical use cases or exclusions, so it's adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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