bookshelf_get_tag

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, which the description matches. However, the description adds no behavioral traits beyond that—it does not mention possible 404 errors, return value shape, or any side effects. Given the annotation covers safety, the description still fails to disclose any operational nuances.

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no unnecessary words and is easily scannable.

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 getter, the description is minimally sufficient given the output schema exists. However, it does not distinguish between 'tag' and 'tag detail' (sibling tool bookshelf_get_tag_detail), nor does it mention any error conditions or returned fields. A more complete description would clarify what 'tag' includes and when to use this over get_tag_detail.

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 no description for the 'id' parameter (0% coverage). The description's 'by id' clarifies that the integer parameter is the tag's identifier, which is minimal but helpful. It does not elaborate on id format, requiredness, or relationships, but for a single obvious parameter this is adequate.

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 'Fetch a single tag by id' uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('single tag'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like bookshelf_list_tag (plural) and bookshelf_get_tag_detail (detail). It unambiguously states the action and scope.

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 'Fetch a single tag by id' provides clear context: use when you have a specific tag ID and need that entity. It implies a point query rather than a list, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, as seen in the get_calls example.

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