enoch_paper_artifact

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

The annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description's 'Read' aligns with these annotations but adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., error handling, network dependencies, or file existence considerations). It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.

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?

At one sentence, the description is very concise but lacks structure. It could include brief parameter explanations or usage hints without significant expansion. The sentence is front-loaded but too terse to fully inform the agent.

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 absence of an output schema and low schema coverage, the description should clarify what is returned (e.g., content format, size limits). It fails to do so, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's output. The tool's low complexity (2 simple params) partially mitigates this, but completeness is still lacking.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain the parameters. However, it only mentions 'paper artifact's content' without defining 'paper_id' or the 'field' enum values. The enum options are listed in the schema but not explained, leaving ambiguity about what each path retrieves.

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 ('Read') and the resource ('paper artifact's content'). While it is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'enoch_paper_detail' or 'enoch_draft_paper', it does not elaborate on what 'content' entails, relying partially on the schema for clarity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states its function without addressing use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and schema.

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