bni_list_chapters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the 'where available' caveat, the ~250-result cap, the potentially long first-call latency for region-by-region sites, and in-process caching—useful behavioral context beyond a simple 'list' statement.

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?

Three sentences pack purpose, usage context, limitations, and performance into a compact description; no filler. It is dense but each clause adds value.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, edge cases, performance, and caching. It could specify the exact return shape, but the core information an agent needs is present.

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 only parameter, country, is fully documented in the schema (two-letter code, example, reference to bni_list_countries). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so 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?

States a specific action ('Lists') and resource ('exact, complete chapter names for a country'), and clarifies its role as a precise keyword source for bni_chapter_gaps/bni_chapter_members, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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?

Explains that the result is intended as a search keyword for chapter-related siblings, which tells an agent when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the use context is clear.

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