emanuscripta_list_records

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

Annotations already convey safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds behavior beyond annotations: it specifies the return format (title, author, date, collection, type, URL), pagination via resumption_token, and total count. It also notes the response_format option (markdown/json).

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections. The introductory paragraph about e-manuscripta includes useful context but could be trimmed without losing essential meaning. Overall, it is reasonably concise.

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?

The description covers purpose, repository background, parameter options, and return structure including pagination. It does not mention potential errors or rate limits, but with annotations and an output schema this is a minor gap. It is complete enough for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 description lists parameters with types and optionality in an Args section, but the input schema already provides detailed descriptions for each property (dates format, set examples, resumption token semantics). The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema; it mostly repeats it.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Listet digitalisierte Handschriften und Archivalien aus e-manuscripta (OAI-PMH).' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like erara_list_records by naming the e-manuscripta repository and the type of material.

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 explains the context of e-manuscripta (Swiss libraries/archives) and instructs to use emanuscripta_list_collections() for available collections. It provides a clear use case, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative list tools.

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