paper_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the description adds useful cost context, but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, pagination behavior, or access requirements.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the usage hint directly follows in a natural reading order.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately states the returned fields and the tool's intended primary role. Minor gaps like ordering or pagination are not covered, but they are low-risk for this simple operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so per the baseline rule a 4 is appropriate. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description correctly avoids implying any inputs.

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 specific verb and resource ('List the papers in the corpus') and enumerates the returned fields (title, status, engine, render state, word count), making the tool's scope immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from paper-reading siblings by saying it is cheaper than reading any paper.

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?

It gives explicit usage context with 'Start here' and a clear cost-based comparison ('much cheaper than reading any paper'), which routes the agent away from read tools. It does not name specific alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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