elog_list_logbooks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return format (list of {name, description?, url} objects) and the effect of an optional environment variable (ELOG_LOGBOOKS) that restricts and orders results. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'list' call, though it does not cover potential errors or auth requirements.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the purpose immediately; the second provides return format and an optional configuration detail. No redundant wording, no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 listing tool with no parameters and an output schema that likely describes the returned objects, the description is complete. It covers what it does, what it returns, and a relevant environment variable. The sibling tools are all entry-focused, so there is no missing context about when to use this tool. No output schema is shown, but the description compensates by describing the return structure.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter meaning. The description adds value by explaining what is returned and mentioning the ELOG_LOGBOOKS environment variable as a configuring influence. This goes beyond the empty schema and justifies a score above the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 'List' and a specific resource 'logbooks available on the configured ELOG server'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (elog_search, elog_get_entry, etc.) which all operate on entries rather than logbooks. No ambiguity.

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 (when you need the list of logbooks) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or when not to use it. Since siblings are all entry-focused, the context makes the purpose obvious, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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