Return a paper's heading tree with per-section word counts and flag missing standard sections, so agents can inspect structure without reading the full document.
The heading tree with per-section word counts, plus missing standard sections. Cheaper than reading the paper.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the returned content (heading tree, per-section word counts, missing standard sections) rather than just restating the name. It says nothing about error behavior, whether the 'name' must match an existing paper, or how word counts are computed.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the cost rationale. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.
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 simple read-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, describing the return shape is the right move and it is done. Gaps remain around the sole parameter's meaning and failure/precondition behavior, which an agent needs to call it correctly.
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 coverage is 0% for the single 'name' parameter, and the description never explains what it refers to — a paper name, file, or section identifier. With one undocumented, undescribed parameter, the description should compensate and does not.
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?
Names a specific resource and its contents: the heading tree with per-section word counts plus missing standard sections. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb, but the returned artifact is unambiguous and implicitly contrasted with reading the paper. It only partially distinguishes itself from siblings like paper_read_section or paper_lint.
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 phrase 'Cheaper than reading the paper' implies a cost-based heuristic for choosing this over full reads, which is genuine usage guidance. However, no sibling tool is named and there are no explicit when/when-not conditions or prerequisites (e.g. whether the paper must exist).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.