Show reading list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description only needs to add context. It does add that the result is the saved reading list with optional filtering and two output encodings, but says nothing about ordering, result size, pagination, or behavior for a tag that matches nothing.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and then the two variations. The telegraphic fragment style is efficient but slightly clipped, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter, zero-required read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema to explain. The description covers the data returned, the optional filter, and the alternate format, which is adequate; only ordering and result-size expectations are unaddressed.

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 meaning, and it does name both parameters' purposes (tag filter, text vs BibTeX output). However it omits that as defaults to text and that only two enum values are accepted, leaving the schema to specify accepted values and the default.

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 saved reading list" names a specific resource and the sentence adds scope (tag filtering) and output forms (text or BibTeX), which distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like library_add and library_remove. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb, so the listing action is implied rather than stated, keeping it just 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 description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The presence of an export_bibtex sibling makes the bibtex option genuinely ambiguous, yet the description never says whether library_list with as=bibtex is a different operation from export_bibtex or when to prefer one over the other.

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