bookstack_books_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: visibility based on authentication, pagination support, and filtering options. However, it omits details like rate limits, error handling, response format, or whether this is a safe read operation (though 'List' implies non-destructive). The description adds value but doesn't fully cover behavioral traits for a tool with no annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by hierarchical context. Every word earns its place—no fluff or repetition. It efficiently conveys essential information in a compact form.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and key behaviors but lacks details on response structure, error cases, or authentication requirements. For a list tool with filtering and pagination, more context on return values or limitations would be helpful, though the high schema coverage mitigates some gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal context by mentioning 'pagination and filtering options,' which aligns with the 'count,' 'offset,' and 'filter' parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('books'), and specifies scope ('visible to the authenticated user'). It distinguishes books as 'top-level containers in BookStack hierarchy,' which helps differentiate from other list tools like chapters or pages. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'bookstack_shelves_list' or 'bookstack_search' for finding books.

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 for listing books with pagination and filtering, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bookstack_search' or 'bookstack_shelves_list.' It mentions 'visible to the authenticated user,' which hints at access context, but lacks clear when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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