reading_list_cards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate it. The description adds context about filtering by completion status or shared moments, which is useful behavioral detail beyond annotations. No additional traits like pagination or sorting are disclosed.

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 sentence, but it includes jargon ('ritual,' 'margin moments') that may confuse the agent. It could be more concise and clear without sacrificing meaning.

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 the tool has 5 parameters (none required) and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what parameters do, what the output looks like, or how to use the tool effectively. More context is needed for proper invocation.

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% (no parameter descriptions in schema), and the tool's description does not mention any of the 5 parameters (limit, scope, bookId, source, chunkId). Since coverage is low, the description must compensate, but it adds no parameter semantics at all.

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 lists cards/bookmarks, specifying they are for 'completed sections or shared margin moments,' which helps distinguish from sibling list tools like reading_list_annotations. However, the phrase 'ritual reading cards' is slightly jargon-like, reducing clarity slightly.

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 context (listing cards for completed sections or shared margin moments) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide when-not or exclusion guidance.

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