List shelves

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing that isPublic is only reliable on English-locale instances due to a localization quirk. This is a useful behavioral trait. The annotation already indicates the tool is read-only, so the description focuses on data quality—a good complement.

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 long and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence adds a usage hint and a behavioral note without unnecessary verbosity. It is structured well for an AI agent, though a bullet point or clearer separation could slightly improve scanability.

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 no output schema, the description mentions the returned id and the isPublic field, but does not describe the full structure of shelf objects (e.g., name, title). The pagination detail is only in the schema. For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the key behavioral uniqueness but lacks full return value documentation.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter (offset), including its own description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context about the offset parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score 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 clearly states what the tool does: it lists public and private shelves visible to the configured user. It also hints at downstream usage (get_shelf_books) and a locale-specific behavior, but does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling list tools like list_books, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 implies using the returned id with get_shelf_books, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., list_books, search_books) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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