bookstack_books_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose other traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the ID is invalid. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get details of a specific book') and adds necessary scope ('including its complete content hierarchy'). There is zero waste or 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and scope but lacks behavioral details (e.g., response format, error handling) and usage guidelines. For a read tool with 100% schema coverage, it's passable but could be more complete.

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%, with one parameter ('id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the ID retrieves book details and hierarchy. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get details') and resource ('a specific book') with additional scope ('including its complete content hierarchy'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'bookstack_books_list' (which lists books) and 'bookstack_books_export' (which exports). However, it doesn't explicitly mention that this is a read operation vs. create/update/delete siblings, though that's implied.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a book ID), when not to use it (e.g., for listing books vs. reading one), or compare to siblings like 'bookstack_books_list' or 'bookstack_chapters_read'. Usage is implied but not explicit.

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