paper_download_list_providers

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It states the operation is a listing action, implying it is read-only and non-destructive, but it does not disclose any additional behavior such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the status is cached. This is adequate but minimal.

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 sentence of 7 words, perfectly front-loaded and free of any filler or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does. It specifies the resource (providers) and the information returned (status). The output schema presumably details the return structure, so no additional return-value explanation is needed. The description is complete for its scope.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameters. It adds no unnecessary detail.

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 'List available download providers and their status' with a specific verb (list), resource (download providers), and scope (their status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like paper_download_fetch or paper_download_probe, which perform different actions.

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: when you need to see what download providers are available, call this tool. However, it provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or mentions of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and siblings.

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