Get Conference Papers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns all papers for a specific conference-year, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination, or any error behaviors. Since this is a getter, the lack of explicit read-only declaration is a minor gap, but the 'get' verb is informative.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every piece of information (action, resource, scoping) is included efficiently.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core behavior and required inputs. It lacks detail about the response structure, but the tool's purpose is straightforward. It is sufficient for selection and invocation, though not for predicting the exact output shape.

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 input schema provides descriptions for both parameters ('Conference key' and 'Conference year'), so coverage is 100%. The description adds only the context that the conference is a security conference, not the meaning of each enum value or year constraints. Thus it neither improves nor detracts from the schema's minimal parameter descriptions.

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 ('Get all papers') and the scope ('from a specific security conference in a specific year'), differentiating it from sibling tools like search_papers (which implies query-based searching) and list_conferences (which lists conferences). The mention of 'all papers' establishes that this is a bulk retrieval, not a filtered search.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for retrieving full conference proceedings, but provides no guidance on when to choose search_papers or get_stats instead. There is no mention of prerequisites like consulting list_conferences to get conference keys.

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