Paper Distill MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing critical behaviors: it detects platforms, manages channels, loads context, returns session info, and explains the 'ask_platform' response scenario. It also warns about encoding issues from direct API calls. Minor gap: doesn't mention error handling or performance characteristics.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, important guidelines, and platform logic. Most sentences earn their place, though the IMPORTANT section is somewhat lengthy. Good front-loading with the core purpose in the first sentence.

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 the tool's complexity as an initialization function with 4 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, critical usage rules, behavioral expectations, and integration with sibling tools, providing sufficient context for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add significant parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions, though it contextualizes 'platform' selection logic. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('initialize', 'set up', 'load context') and resources ('research session', 'push channels'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'setup' or 'load_session_context'. It explains this is the first call needed to establish the research environment.

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?

Explicitly states 'Call this first' and provides detailed when/when-not guidance: NEVER call external APIs directly, always use built-in tools. It also explains platform selection logic (auto-detection vs user choice) and references sibling tools like 'send_push' for related functionality.

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