get_epub_path

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It indicates the tool provides an absolute file path and that the result is used for unzipping. It does not specify side effects, but given its read-only nature inferred from 'get', this is adequate. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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 very concise: two sentences plus an args section. Each part serves a purpose: stating the action, contextualizing within a workflow, and documenting the parameter. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given it has an output schema (not shown, but present), the description does not need to explain return values. It explains the parameter sufficiently for a simple tool. The only missing aspect is potentially clarifying that the path is absolute, which it does. It is complete for its 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 and only one parameter, the description adds value by explaining the parameter's purpose ('book_id: The Calibre book ID') in the args section, but this is minimal. The schema already provides the parameter name and type. The description does not elaborate on format or constraints.

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 returns the absolute file path of a book's EPUB file. It also specifies the purpose within the reading-quiz workflow, distinguishing it from siblings by emphasizing it's for obtaining the path to enable unzipping and reading.

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 explains the core purpose for a specific workflow, implying usage when needing the EPUB path. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings. The requirement for a book_id is clear from the schema.

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