list_bibles

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies the operation as a read/list action and specifies the data source (the Bibles directory). However, it omits details such as whether the list is sorted, what happens if the directory is empty or missing, or if any authorization is required. For a simple parameterless tool this is adequate but not rich.

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, short sentence that immediately conveys the tool's action ('List...'), the resource ('Bible translations'), and the context ('installed in the Bibles directory'). Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and is part of a small family of tools, the description provides enough high-level context to understand its role. It could mention the nature of the output (e.g., 'returns a list of translation names') to be fully self-contained, but for a simple list operation it is nearly 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. With no parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate, and the description adds no additional param information, which is fine.

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 verb 'List' and the specific resource 'available Bible translations', with the scope 'installed in the Bibles directory'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_books (which lists books within a translation) and get_passage/get_chapter (which retrieve content). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is implied that one would call list_bibles first to see available translations before using list_books or get_passage, no direct usage context or exclusions are provided. The guidance is minimal, relying on the user to infer the workflow from the tool names alone.

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