Get personalized shelves

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read. The description adds that shelves are user-specific and lists examples, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as ordering, pagination, or potential variations in shelf contents. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences: the first defines the resource, the second gives a practical use case. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple read-only list tool with readOnlyHint annotation and complete schema coverage, the description fully captures purpose and usage. No output schema is present, but examples of shelf types suffice for understanding the returned data. It is complete for this tool's complexity.

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 100% for all three parameters (library_id, limit, detail), so the schema fully documents them. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, meeting the baseline of 3 but not exceeding 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 clearly states what the tool returns: the shelves of the Audiobookshelf home screen for the current user, with concrete examples (Continue Listening, Recently Added, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_items_in_progress or get_media_progress by focusing on the personalized home screen concept.

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 a clear use case: "The fastest answer to 'what am I listening to right now?'" This gives context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since siblings exist (e.g., list_items_in_progress), explicit exclusions would have improved the score.

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