reading_list_submissions

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'List' verb is consistent. The description adds the useful scoping detail that only submission batches 'shared with Claude' are returned, which is not visible in the schema. However, it does not disclose behaviors like pagination, default limits, or filtering effects.

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, tightly-scoped sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource with a useful qualifier, making it highly efficient for its length.

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?

With four optional parameters and no output schema, the description should at least hint at how filters are used and what a returned batch looks like. It does neither. The only added context is the 'shared with Claude' scoping, which is insufficient for an agent to confidently call the tool with correct parameters.

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 does not mention limit, bookId, chunkId, or sessionId at all. The parameter names are somewhat intuitive, but the description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema 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 ('List'), names the exact resource ('human note submission batches'), and adds a meaningful scope ('shared with Claude'). This differentiates it well from siblings like reading_read_submission (singular tool) and reading_list_annotations (different resource type).

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 offers no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that reading_read_submission might be used to read a single batch, nor does it provide any context about typical workflows. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and one-line description.

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