get_book_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (engine, target language, rules, progress, chunk ids) and implies a read-only operation. It does not mention error conditions or side effects, but for a getter this is acceptable; the return contents are well-specified.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the resource ('one book's cache') and lists the exact fields returned. There is no redundancy or wasted words.

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?

The tool has one simple parameter and an output schema (not shown here but referenced), so the description need not detail return format. It lists the key fields an agent would need to know. No essential information is missing for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain book_id beyond the parameter name. However, the single parameter is self-evidently an identifier, and the description's focus on 'one book' makes its role clear. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 tool retrieves details of one book's cache, listing specific fields: engine, target language, merge/alignment rules, progress, and non-aligned chunk ids. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_books (listing books) and list_chunks (listing chunks), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 fetching per-book metadata, contrasting with list_books (multiple books) and get_original/get_translation (content retrieval). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so guidance is clear but implicit.

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