Reads exactly one paper section by heading, returning only its heading and body up to max_tokens so agents can revise sections without loading whole documents.
Read exactly one section (heading plus body), truncated to max_tokens. Use this instead of reading the whole file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| level | No | ||
| heading | Yes | ||
| max_tokens | 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 burden, and it does disclose one meaningful behavior: output is truncated to `max_tokens` (default 1200). However it is silent on what happens if `heading` doesn't match an existing section, whether matching is exact or fuzzy, and whether `name`/`level` scope the lookup.
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 the core action and followed by the disambiguation. No filler, though the extreme brevity leaves no room for the parameter clarifications the schema needs.
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 4-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it leaves half the parameters undefined and gives no indication of return shape or failure behavior when a heading is not found.
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% with 4 parameters, and the description only illuminates `heading` and `max_tokens`. The `name` and `level` parameters are completely undocumented — an agent cannot tell whether `name` is a file path, corpus entry, or paper title, or what `level` means for heading selection.
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?
States a specific verb and resource — 'Read exactly one section (heading plus body)' — plus the truncation limit, which is more precise than the tool name alone. It implicitly distinguishes itself from whole-file reads, though it doesn't name a specific sibling (e.g. paper_context or paper_outline) that an agent might confuse it with.
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?
'Use this instead of reading the whole file' gives a directional preference, but there is no named alternative tool and no statement of when this tool is inappropriate (e.g. when the section is unknown or when a full outline is needed). Usage is implied rather than fully specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.