comment_on_paper

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Post a comment' and lists types, but does not mention required permissions, rate limits, visibility, or confirmation. Since this is a mutation tool, more detail is needed.

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 sentences, no fluff. Every word contributes to describing the tool's purpose and scope.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks behavior details. It doesn't explain what happens after posting (e.g., visibility, moderation) or how it interacts with other tools.

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 100%, so the description's addition is minimal. It lists comment types which are already in the enum. The description does not add new meaning beyond 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 action 'Post a comment on a paper' and lists specific comment types (public, author response, reviewer discussion, meta-review), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_comments (read) and submit_review (review).

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 implies when to use this tool (to post a comment) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that get_comments is for reading comments or that submit_review is for submitting an official review.

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