list_indexed_papers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists returned fields but omits whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, whether it paginates or orders results, and whether it has side effects.

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 that lists the exact fields returned. No wasted words, and the verb and resource come first.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description does name the returned fields, which is useful. However, it remains vague on important terms like 'index readiness' and 'retrieval settings,' and offers no usage or behavioral context to compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 takes zero parameters (100% schema coverage for an empty schema), so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('paper IDs, titles, DOI, index readiness, chunk counts, and retrieval settings'). It does not differentiate this tool from siblings like index_papers or search_papers, which limits it from a 5.

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 only states what is returned. It gives no guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no alternatives such as index_papers or search_papers.

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