bookshelf_get_retag

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already informs the agent that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the context that the retags are 'proposed' (suggesting they are not yet applied), which is useful but does not go beyond what annotations provide in terms of side effects or prerequisites. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to clarity, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

While an output schema exists to explain return values, the description is too sparse to fully guide usage. It does not explain how the two parameters interact or whether one must be specified. For a simple read-only list operation, it is adequate but leaves gaps in parameter usage understanding.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only hints at 'author or book' which maps to author_id and book_id but does not clarify whether they are optional, whether they can be combined, or what each parameter specifically does. This is minimal compensation for the lack of schema documentation.

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), names a clear resource (proposed file retags), and identifies the scope (for an author or book). It distinguishes this tool from the many other list/get tools by focusing on the unique retag concept.

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 phrase 'for an author or book' implies usage context, showing it filters by author or book, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other listing tools) or provide exclusions. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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