load_paper

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

The description mentions loading and building a theorem graph, which covers the main behavior, but it does not disclose whether the tool has side effects (e.g., saving state) or what it returns. Without annotations, some behavioral aspects remain unspecified.

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, concise sentence with no redundant or extraneous information. It is well-structured and immediately conveys the tool's purpose.

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?

While the description is sufficient for a simple tool, it omits details about return value (e.g., the built theorem graph), error handling, and specific conditions for use. Given the presence of many related tools, a bit more context on what the output or effect is would improve completeness.

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 provides no description for the 'path' parameter, and the description only indirectly implies it is the file path to a local LaTeX paper. It adds some meaning but does not explicitly define path format, required permissions, or relation to the graph building.

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 (load) and the specific resource (local LaTeX paper) and adds the purpose of building a theorem graph. This makes the tool's primary function unambiguous.

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 usage for local LaTeX files but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like load_arxiv_paper. It lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, though the name and context provide some implicit direction.

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