bookstack_shelves_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 implies a read-only operation ('Get details') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), pagination for many books, or whether it returns nested book structures fully or partially. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 bookshelf') and adds necessary elaboration ('including all its books and their structure'). 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 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output information, which are important for a read operation that might return complex nested data.

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 the parameter 'id' documented as 'Shelf ID to retrieve'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Get details') and resource ('a specific bookshelf'), including what details are retrieved ('including all its books and their structure'). It distinguishes from 'bookstack_shelves_list' by focusing on a single shelf rather than listing multiple shelves. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'bookstack_books_read' which might also provide book details.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a shelf ID), compare with 'bookstack_shelves_list' for browsing shelves, or specify use cases like retrieving shelf contents for navigation or auditing.

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