shelf_suggest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains the return value and the meaning of 'on_shelf=True,' which is helpful for understanding what the tool does. However, it doesn't elaborate on the exact algorithmic nature of what makes it a 'second ring' or if there are any side 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 concise, directly explaining the tool's purpose in a few sentences and providing a clear text representation of the return type. The structure effectively separates the primary purpose from the output definition, making it easy to parse for an agent.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description provides a good understanding of the tool's purpose and output. It clarifies the one parameter it has and explains the structure of the response, covering the required bases for a tool of this low-level complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the parameter `tag` depends entirely on the description. The description explicitly clarifies, 'tag: filter to one shelf tag, empty = everything,' adding significant meaning about the filtering behavior and default behavior that goes beyond the raw type definition in the schema.

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 it finds 'A second ring of verified sources that are not on the default shelf,' which gives a specific purpose and implicitly distinguishes it from other tools like shelf_add or shelf. While it's clear, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools for direct differentiation.

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 shows how to act on the output by saying 'shelf_add(url=its url, name=its name)', which implies a workflow, but does not explicitly clarify the difference between 'second ring' and 'default shelf' or when to prefer this over the alternative 'shelf' tool for direct listing. Clear usage context is implied but not explicitly spelled out.

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