reading_list_cards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. It adds some behavioral context by stating that the returned items are "collected" and tied to "completed sections or shared margin moments," but it does not disclose ordering, default limits, or response shape.

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 concise sentence with no filler and front-loads the main action. The phrase "shared margin moments" is somewhat vague, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 description is not adequate for a list tool with five optional parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling set. An agent cannot determine how to construct a valid call, what the returned cards look like, or how this tool differs from other card-related tools.

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 provides no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain limit, scope, bookId, source, or chunkId, nor how they filter results. With five undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema information.

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 clear verb ("List") and a specific resource ("collected ritual reading cards/bookmarks"), and adds a scoping qualifier ("for completed sections or shared margin moments"). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like reading_card_collection or reading_card_inbox, but the domain is reasonably 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?

The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reading_card_inbox, reading_card_collection, or reading_list_annotations. No exclusions, prerequisites, or selection guidance are provided, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names.

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