list_bookmarks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly says 'Read-only' and discloses that internal bookmarks are excluded, which is useful context beyond the schema. It does not mention errors or path requirements, but the read-only and exclusion disclosures are strong for a simple listing tool.

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 three tight sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core behavior, then adds purpose and a key exclusion, and ends with a clear read-only note. Every sentence adds value.

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 one-parameter list tool, the description is complete: it defines what is listed, what is excluded, the read-only nature, and the downstream use cases. The presence of an output schema means return-value details do not need to be repeated in the description.

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 has one required parameter, file_path, with no description coverage. The tool description does not explain file_path's format or semantics, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning. However, a single required string named file_path is fairly self-evident, making this adequate but not exemplary.

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 states a clear verb-plus-resource: list every user-visible bookmark, with specific fields (name, paragraph index, bookmarked text). It also distinguishes user-visible bookmarks from internal/TOC/field-generated bookmarks, making the tool's scope precise and separating it from add_bookmark and add_cross_reference.

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 usage by noting bookmarks serve as targets for add_cross_reference and anchors for navigation, but it does not explicitly say when to use list_bookmarks versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. The guidance is present but indirect.

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