list_paper_latex_sections

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond 'return' (e.g., read-only nature, potential side effects). While annotations include openWorldHint=true, the description adds no context. The readOnlyHint=false annotation slightly contradicts the read implication of 'return', but no explicit contradiction.

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?

Single sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's function.

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 straightforward listing tool with self-explanatory parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. However, it could mention the output format or behavior for non-LaTeX papers.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters (paper_id, start, max_sections) beyond what is already in the schema.

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 precisely states the verb ('Return') and resource ('compact outline of headings from original LaTeX source'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_paper_latex_section' which retrieves a single section's content.

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 'list_papers' or 'get_paper_latex_section'. The description does not mention prerequisites or contexts where the tool is most suitable.

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