reading_list_annotations

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds the behavior of optional filtering. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, default scope, or response shape, but with the annotation covering safety, this is a modest but acceptable level of transparency.

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 one tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core action first and then the optional filters, which is exactly the right structure.

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 simple filtered-list read operation, the description is minimally adequate, especially with readOnlyHint present. However, with no output schema and no mention of status/parentId or list response details, an agent gets only a partial picture of what this tool returns and how to scope it.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It maps four of the six schema fields (kind, author, book, chunk) to filter concepts, but it omits status and parentId entirely and provides no value format or enum guidance. This is only partial compensation for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('List') and resource ('annotations'), and mentions the optional filter dimensions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like reading_list_submissions, reading_list_chunks, and reading_list_books.

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 intended use is implied by the name and description: call this when you need annotations rather than submissions, chunks, or books. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the routing from the tool name alone.

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