list_books

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that the list includes temporary caches, explains duplicate cache generation, defines the duplicate_title flag, warns about the consequences of picking the wrong id, and clarifies that persistent=false means the cache is destroyed when the advanced-mode window closes.

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 information-dense without fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then introduces caveats and filtering in a logical order. Every sentence adds operational value, including the disambiguation warning and persistence note, making the length justified.

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?

For a discovery/list tool with no annotations, the description provides all essential operational context: what is listed, what the id means, how to handle duplicates, how to filter, and what persistent=false implies. An output schema exists, so the return-value format does not need to be described in prose. The descrption is complete for correct tool selection and 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?

The input schema only provides the keyword property with a default and no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by explaining that keyword fuzzy-filters by title/engine/language and is useful when there are many books. This goes well beyond the bare 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all cached translation books with progress'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing it returns the book_id used by every other tool, and adds the important disambiguation context about duplicate titles and cache variants.

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 clearly explains the primary use case: discover books and retrieve the book_id that all other tools depend on. It also gives practical guidance on using keyword to filter and on disambiguating duplicates. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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