handbook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions cache management and a force parameter, implying some mutability. But it does not clarify whether operations are read-only (except cache update), authentication requirements, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 structured with sections (Actions, Args, Examples) but is somewhat verbose, repeating the action list in both free text and examples. Could be more concise while retaining clarity. Adequate but not optimized.

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 high complexity (9 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers actions and parameters but lacks details on return values, error handling, and usage contexts for specific actions. It is sufficient for basic use but incomplete for nuanced decision-making.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists all parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'filename: Chapter filename (for get action)'). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema. Defaults are mentioned but not all implications are clear, so 4.

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 states it provides 'Glyphs Handbook operations' and lists distinct actions (search, get, toc, children, etc.). This clearly identifies the tool's purpose, but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'vocabulary', which may also be a reference tool. Thus a 4.

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 provides examples for common actions, giving concrete usage. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus the sibling 'vocabulary' or when to prefer one action over another. Usage guidance is implicit but not explicit.

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