get_shelf

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses public nature, no auth required, RSS feed behavior, ~100 items per page, default user ID, and a citation note. Missing potential error cases or rate limits, but covers essential behavioral traits.

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?

Five sentences, each purposeful. Front-loaded with purpose, then specific details. No redundancy or filler. Efficient and clear.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description doesn't need to document return values. It covers all key aspects: purpose, parameters, behavior, and a usage note. Complete for a simple list tool.

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%, yet the description adds meaning for all three parameters: shelf (common examples, default), page (pagination, default), user_id (defaults to configured ID). Fully compensates for schema gaps.

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?

Clearly states it lists books on a shelf via RSS feed, noting it's for public shelves. While it mentions common shelves, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like similar_books or list_shelves, but the focus on RSS feed and shelf-specific listing is clear.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use (list books on a shelf) and basic usage (public, no auth, pagination). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives among siblings, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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