List papers

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing a real side effect ("Indexes not-yet-parsed PDFs on first call"), the de-duplication key, the exact fields returned, and an explicit non-return ("Never returns full text"). The first-call indexing is a write to a local cache that readOnlyHint does not cover, so surfacing it is genuinely valuable context rather than a restatement.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then side effect, then return contract. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 zero-required-param listing tool with no output schema, the description covers corpus, de-duplication, return fields, and the indexing side effect. The one gap is pagination: with limit/offset present it never says whether a total count is returned or how the agent should decide it has listed everything.

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 documents all three parameters (limit, query, offset) at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about filtering or paging behavior — notably it never says whether `query` narrows the listed set or how `offset`/`limit` interact with de-duplication.

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 ("List PDFs in the configured literature folder") plus the scope qualifier of SHA-256 de-duplication, so the agent knows exactly what corpus is enumerated. It implicitly separates itself from read_paper_pages via "Never returns full text", but it never names search_papers or the other siblings as the alternative for filtered retrieval.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the browse/enumerate entry point before calling read_paper_pages or get_paper_structure. There is no explicit when-to-use versus search_papers, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. that the folder must be configured).

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