reading_card_inbox

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only safety profile. The description adds the meaningful 'unread' and 'collected' filter semantics, which are behavioral traits. It does not disclose ordering, pagination, or whether viewing affects state, but these are minor given the read-only annotation.

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 that states the action and resource before the illustrative analogy. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 core purpose is clear enough for a basic invocation, and the read-only annotation covers side-effect concerns. However, with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the meaning of limit and bookId is left entirely to inference, so the description is only minimally complete for a two-parameter 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%, and the description never mentions limit or bookId. An agent must guess that limit caps the number of results and bookId filters by book, so the description entirely fails to add meaning beyond the bare property names and types.

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: 'Show unread collected reading-card prompts.' The 'small bookmark inbox' analogy reinforces a distinct scope, differentiating it from listing all cards or mutating actions like reading_save_card/reading_dismiss_card.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when the user wants unread collected reading-card prompts. However, the description does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like reading_list_cards, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance, leaving some routing to inference.

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