list_papers_by_label

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only indicates a read operation. It fails to disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, behavior with large clusters, or any constraints. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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, which is concise but too brief given the tool's complexity. It is front-loaded with the main action but omits essential details, making it minimally adequate.

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?

Despite an output schema, the description lacks context about what a 'paper state' entails, how the cluster is identified, filter behavior, and any limits or pagination. The agent would need to infer too much from the schema alone.

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?

Three parameters exist with 0% schema description coverage. The description only vaguely addresses 'label' filtering, leaving 'cluster_slug' and 'label_not' unexplained. Does not clarify the relationship between 'label' and 'label_not' or their expected formats.

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 tool returns paper states for a cluster with optional label filtering. It implies a specific resource (cluster) and operation (return states), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_orphan_papers' or 'list_clusters', but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_papers' or 'list_papers'. Does not explain when to use 'label' vs 'label_not' filters, nor provide examples or context for optimal use.

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