rtfm_books

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey the read-only 'List' behavior and the presence of pagination, which is useful context. But it does not explain what the per-corpus summary contains, what the response looks like, or whether cross-project access (via the project parameter) has any caveats.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition of schema details. Every word adds value: the operation, the per-corpus summary, and pagination.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin to fully specify the returned shape of the per-corpus summary or the default/current project behavior. It covers the high-level operation but leaves an agent guessing about response format and cross-project semantics.

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%, so each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description only vaguely relates to corpus and pagination without adding meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific operation ('List indexed books') and adds distinctive qualifiers (per-corpus summary, pagination) that separate it from the search, coverage, and history siblings. However, it never explicitly names a sibling or defines the per-corpus summary, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over rtfm_search, rtfm_discover, or rtfm_coverage, and no exclusions are given. The only signal is the literal purpose, which is not enough to steer an agent among eight siblings.

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