read_dblp_paper

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that the tool does not return paper content, only an informative message. It also notes that save_path is unused. This is honest and prevents misuse, though it could mention the nature of the message.

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 concise, with each sentence serving a purpose. It uses a clear docstring format with Args and Returns sections, front-loading the key limitation. No redundant text.

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 simple tool (2 params, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers behavior, unused parameter, and return type. Could be slightly improved by hinting at the message content or suggesting download alternatives, but it is largely adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains paper_id as 'dblp paper identifier' and save_path as 'unused'. This adds some meaning, but the format of paper_id is not specified, and save_path's irrelevance is clearly stated.

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 states the tool attempts to read a dblp paper but immediately clarifies that dblp does not provide direct access, so it returns an informative message. This clearly differentiates it from other read_* tools that may succeed, and avoids false expectations.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The note about dblp's limitation implies that users should not expect actual content, but it does not suggest alternatives like download_dblp. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced.

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