paper_text

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects, performance implications, error handling, or explicitly confirm it is read-only. Mentioning 'using pdftotext' is an implementation detail, not behavioral transparency. The extract action implies reading, but the description lacks depth.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, and the second provides essential input sourcing. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers purpose and parameter sourcing adequately. It does not mention limitations like scanned PDFs or potential errors, but the presence of an output schema likely handles return values. Slight gap in edge-case behaviors.

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 a single parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining item_key as a paper identifier and providing specific instructions on where to find it (list_library output prefixed with [KEY], or search_papers results). This adds meaning beyond the bare string type 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 the tool extracts full text from a paper's PDF, using the specific verb 'Extract' and identifying the resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_library (listing papers), paper_details (metadata), and search_papers (searching), as it's the only one that retrieves full text content.

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 clear context by instructing how to obtain the required item_key from list_library or search_papers results. This implies the tool is used when full text is needed and even mentions prerequisite tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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