reading_card_inbox

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, aligning with the description's 'Show' verb. The description adds a metaphor ('like a small bookmark inbox') but fails to detail behavior like ordering, pagination, or whether it shows all unread or only a subset.

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 concise sentence. However, the 'like a small bookmark inbox' analogy adds color but could be omitted without losing clarity, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

Given no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description lacks crucial details on return format, valid parameter values, and how this tool fits among 25 sibling tools. The metaphor does not compensate for missing technical specifications.

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%, and the description provides no explanation for the two parameters (limit, bookId). The agent must guess their meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for effective use.

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 'Show unread collected reading-card prompts' clearly identifies the action and resource. It implies a list/filter operation distinct from siblings like reading_open_card or reading_dismiss_card, though the term 'prompts' could be more specific.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as reading_list_cards or reading_card_collection. The comparison to a 'bookmark inbox' suggests a filtered view, but no explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite mentions.

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