list_books

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what the response format looks like, or if it could be destructive. The description is too brief to convey behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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 is front-loaded with the key action and resource. It wastes no words, but could arguably be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, hence a 4 rather than 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?

Given the tool has no output schema, a mandatory parameter, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what the response contains (e.g., book names, chapters count) and whether the output is sorted or ordered. The current description is insufficient for an agent to understand the complete behavior or handle edge cases.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'translation' has a clear description including an example value and a cross-reference to 'list_bibles' for available IDs. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and the clear resource 'books in a specific Bible translation'. It unambiguously states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_bibles' (which lists translations) and 'get_passage' (which retrieves content).

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 clearly implies the tool is for enumerating books within a translation, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_chapter' or 'list_bibles'. It provides no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., user must have a valid translation ID) or exclusions (e.g., not for retrieving chapters).

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