Paper Distill MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Add' implies a write operation, the description doesn't specify whether this creates a persistent configuration, requires specific permissions, has side effects on existing topics, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, focused sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for this tool and front-loads the essential information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 that the tool has an output schema (which presumably documents return values) and 100% schema description coverage, the description doesn't need to explain parameters or return values. However, for a creation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about persistence, permissions, and error conditions to be truly complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value. The description doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples.

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 ('Add') and resource ('a research topic for paper search'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'manage_topics', but the verb 'Add' suggests creation rather than general management, providing some differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'manage_topics' or other topic-related operations. It doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or typical scenarios for adding research topics, leaving the agent with insufficient context for appropriate tool selection.

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