Paper Pilot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only minimally discloses behavior. It states the return format ('local path and text preview') but doesn't mention critical aspects like network dependencies, potential failures (e.g., DOI not found), legal/access considerations for Sci-Hub, or file handling. More behavioral context is needed for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence covers purpose and input, the second covers output, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, error handling, and behavioral traits (e.g., network calls, file system changes). The output mention is helpful but insufficient for full context.

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 must compensate but adds little. It mentions the 'doi' parameter's purpose but not its format or constraints. The 'topic_hint' parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving its purpose and effect unclear.

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 specific action ('Download a paper PDF'), target resource ('via Sci-Hub'), and key input mechanism ('using its DOI'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'search_scihub' (which searches) and 'inspect_open_access_pdf' (which inspects rather than downloads).

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 have a DOI and want the PDF, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_scihub' (for finding papers) or 'extract_local_pdf_text' (for already downloaded PDFs). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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