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 offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions downloading 'when possible' (implying conditional success) and returning a 'preview' (vague on format), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, file handling, error conditions, or what 'preview' entails. For a tool with potential legal/technical complexity, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core actions ('resolve', 'download', 'return') and resources, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place in conveying the tool's essence.

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 high complexity (7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It omits critical context: parameter meanings, output format ('preview' is vague), error handling, dependencies (e.g., requires prior search), and legal/technical constraints. For a tool that interacts with external systems and handles downloads, this leaves significant gaps.

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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information—it doesn't explain what 'mirror_1' is, how 'extension' affects behavior, or the role of metadata fields like 'author' or 'year'. This fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving 7 parameters semantically 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('resolve', 'download', 'return') and resources ('LibGen mirror links', 'PDF', 'preview'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_libgen' (which likely searches rather than resolves/downloads) and 'download_scihub_paper' (which targets SciHub not LibGen), though it doesn't explicitly name these distinctions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing mirror links from search results), exclusions (e.g., when other tools might be better), or compare to siblings like 'inspect_open_access_pdf' or 'download_scihub_paper'. Usage is implied but not articulated.

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