list_bookmarks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and 'List all bookmarked nodes' clearly signals a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or the exact semantic of 'all,' and it provides no context on how bookmarks are represented.

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 with no filler. Every word carries meaning, making it appropriately compact without becoming under-specified.

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?

For a zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the one-line description is largely sufficient: the agent knows the action and resource, and the schema covers the return shape. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not orient the agent against sibling tools or note any special bookmark behavior.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and no parameter information is missing. The 0-parameter baseline applies cleanly here.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('bookmarked nodes'), making the operation unmistakable. The word 'bookmarked' differentiates it from sibling tools like list_nodes and aligns it with add_bookmark/remove_bookmark without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over list_nodes or search_nodes, and no mention of prerequisites or intended scenarios. The description states only what the tool does, leaving the selection decision entirely to the agent's inference.

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