get_reading_list

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It claims 'all bookmarks' but the schema includes a limit parameter with a default of 50, meaning it does not necessarily return all. This is misleading and fails to disclose pagination or result ordering, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It wastes no space and is easily scannable.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter and an output schema), the description is mostly adequate but has a critical gap: the inconsistency between 'all' and the limit parameter. It also does not address ordering or return shape, though the output schema covers the latter. Overall, it leaves room for misinterpretation.

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 fully describes the limit parameter (maximum results, default 50), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 bookmarks from the reading list, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('bookmarks') with a scoping tag (#readlater). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bookmarks or search_bookmarks, which have broader or different scopes.

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 for retrieving reading-list bookmarks, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using get_bookmarks for all bookmarks or search_bookmarks for filtering, so it stops short of full guidance.

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