bookstack_chapters_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 it's a read operation ('Get details'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic purpose.

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 chapter') and adds necessary detail ('including all its pages and complete structure'). There is zero waste, and it's appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, more context on response format or constraints would improve completeness, but it's not entirely inadequate for a basic read operation.

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') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter is for a 'specific chapter', which is already clear from the schema. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 chapter'), including what details are retrieved ('including all its pages and complete structure'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'bookstack_chapters_list' (which lists chapters) and 'bookstack_chapters_read' (which reads a chapter), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more distinct from other 'read' operations.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for retrieving a chapter's details, but it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing a chapter ID), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'bookstack_chapters_list' or 'bookstack_pages_read'. Usage is implied from the purpose, but no actionable guidelines are given.

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