read_semantic_paper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose potential issues such as rate limits, authentication needs, or behavior when a paper is not found. The multiple identifier formats are useful but insufficient for transparency.

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 well-structured with an Args section and front-loaded purpose. It is reasonably concise for the detail it provides, though the list of paper_id formats could be shortened with a general pattern. No unnecessary sentences.

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 presence of many sibling read_ tools, the description adequately specifies that it works on Semantic Scholar papers. With an output schema present, the return type 'str' is sufficient. However, it lacks information on error handling, prerequisites for using save_path, and when to prefer this over other read tools.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed, example-rich explanations for paper_id, covering many accepted formats. The save_path parameter is explained with a default value, though its specific role (downloading/reading PDF) is implicit. Overall, adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Read and extract text content from a Semantic Scholar paper,' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., read_arxiv_paper) by specifying the source.

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 thoroughly documents the paper_id formats, which guides correct invocation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other read_* tools or download tools, and does not mention prerequisites or limitations.

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