List bookmarks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and open-world behavior are covered. However, the description adds little beyond the action 'List' and the purpose. It does not disclose pagination, default limits, response format, or any constraints on what bookmarks are returned. For a simple read tool, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it lacks substance, which is penalized in other dimensions, but for structure and size it is appropriately short.

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 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description should explain return values, filtering options, pagination, and how parameters interact. It provides none of this. The tool is a list operation, but there is no information on what data is returned, how to paginate, or what the 'query' and 'mainWebsites' parameters do. This is severely incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema has 4 parameters with zero description coverage, and the description does not mention any of them. With such low schema coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings and usage, but it is completely silent. The agent has no guidance on what 'page', 'limit', 'query', or 'mainWebsites' control.

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 clearly states the tool lists bookmarks and specifies their purpose (available to assign to profiles). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_statuses or list_profiles by clearly identifying the resource (bookmarks) and the action (list).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another list tool would be more appropriate. The context of 'available to assign to profiles' is a vague hint, not a clear usage rule.

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