bookshelf_wanted

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description lists only read operations (get/list), so no additional behavioral disclosure is strictly needed. However, the description adds little beyond the operation list; it does not explain response behavior or edge cases, but given the annotation, a 3 is appropriate.

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 well-structured and mostly concise, with a short introductory sentence followed by a scannable list of operations. The opening phrase 'bookshelf wanted operations on Bookshelf' is slightly redundant, but otherwise every line contributes useful information.

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 multi-operation dispatcher with no parameter descriptions in the schema and a confirmed output schema, the description covers all operations and their parameters adequately. It does not include examples or detailed argument formatting, but the output schema and readOnly annotation reduce the need for further behavioral details.

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 carry the burden, and it does. It lists each operation signature and the query parameters for list operations (page, pageSize, sortKey, sortDirection, includeAuthor, monitored), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It could be stronger by defining the exact `arguments` key names for the get operations, but it still provides substantial guidance.

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 identifies this as a dispatcher for Bookshelf 'wanted' operations, listing four specific operations with verbs like fetch/list and resources like wanted cutoff/missing. It is clear enough for selecting the function, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the broader bookshelf_* sibling tool group.

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 instructs the caller to pass an `operation` and an `arguments` dict, and enumerates the available operations with their signatures. This implies usage context but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling bookshelf modules or provide exclusions/alternatives.

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