lit_fetch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses side effects (downloads into the local library, extracts text, indexes) and the key format preference (sectioned XML over PDF, because headings matter). It does not discuss failure modes or authorization, but it is substantially more transparent than a minimal description.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a purposeful rationale that helps the agent understand when XML matters.

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?

The description covers the main operational flow and rationale, and an output schema exists to describe return values. However, it is incomplete for correct invocation because it does not clarify the identifier format or the precise behavior of `prefer_pdf`, leaving the agent to guess critical parameter semantics.

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%, so the description needed to explain both `identifier` and `prefer_pdf`. It never mentions `identifier` at all, and `prefer_pdf` is only indirectly hinted at by the 'Prefers sectioned XML over PDF' sentence; the actual meaning of the boolean override is left unclear.

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 names a concrete action ('Download') and a concrete resource ('the best legal full text for a paper'), then clarifies the follow-up steps (extract and index it). This clearly distinguishes lit_fetch from the search, citation, and library-reading siblings by focusing on acquiring and indexing full text.

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 this tool is for when the full text of a paper is needed in the local library, especially when section structure matters for answering questions like 'what did the Methods say.' However, it never explicitly contrasts lit_fetch with lit_get, lit_request_copy, or lib_read, nor states when not to use it.

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