read_paper_full_text

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the full pipeline: it resolves the open-access PDF, downloads it, caches locally under ~/.cache/research-mcp/pdf/ by default, extracts text with PyMuPDF, and truncates to max_chars. This goes well beyond a bare verb, though it does not cover error behavior when no open-access version is found.

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 two concise paragraphs, frontloaded with the action and accepted identifiers, then process details and usage advice. No redundant filler; every sentence adds operational value.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all needed call context: accepted input formats, resolution strategy, download/caching behavior, truncation, and fallback advice. Nothing essential is missing.

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 must compensate. It clarifies the primary parameter accepts DOI, arXiv ID, or direct PDF URL, and explains max_chars controls truncation. The cache parameter is only implied via the caching default, so coverage is not complete but sufficient.

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 a clear action ('Read the full text of a paper') and a specific resource (a paper identified by DOI, arXiv ID, or PDF URL). It contrasts with siblings such as search_papers and paper_details by focusing on full-text retrieval, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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 second paragraph explicitly instructs the agent to use paper_details or search_papers to find the open_access_pdf first and to pass a direct URL if DOI resolution returns no open-access copy. This gives concrete when-to-use guidance and routing to sibling tools.

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