get_manga_chapters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention potential side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'recent' means (e.g., time frame). This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic listing.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('List recent English chapter metadata for a manga') contributes directly to understanding the tool, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 an output schema (which handles return values), low schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, and sibling differentiation. For a list tool with three parameters, it should provide more context to be fully complete.

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 low at 33%, with only 'mangaId' having a description. The tool description adds minimal value by implying 'recent' and 'English' filtering, but doesn't explain how these relate to the parameters (e.g., if 'limit' affects recency or if language is hardcoded). It partially compensates for the coverage gap but doesn't fully clarify parameter meanings beyond the schema.

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 action ('List') and resource ('recent English chapter metadata for a manga'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_chapter_access_info' or 'get_manga_details', which might also involve chapter or manga data, so it lacks sibling distinction for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_chapter_access_info' or 'search_manga'. It mentions 'recent' and 'English' as implicit context, but there are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage unclear in relation to siblings.

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