get_continue_reading

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not explain what defines 'in progress' (e.g., percentage read, last accessed), whether results are ordered, or if any state changes occur. This lack of context is a significant gap for a tool without annotations.

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 fluff. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words.

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?

The tool is simple with one documented parameter and no output schema, but the description leaves ambiguity about what 'in progress' means and the ordering/return format. While complete enough for basic understanding, it does not fully clarify the tool's behavior in edge cases or list semantics.

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 already fully documents the 'limit' parameter with a clear description, default, and bounds. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool retrieves books that are in progress or ready for continued reading, using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('books'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_books or get_recently_added, so it falls short of a 5.

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 'currently in progress / ready to continue reading' implies a usage context (when the user wants to resume books), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_books or get_recently_added. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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