list_papers

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

The description discloses the edge case of an empty list when no papers are downloaded, and clarifies that only arXiv IDs are returned, not full text. With minimal annotations (readOnlyHint only), this adds valuable behavioral context without contradiction. It sets expectations for the response format and the need to call read_paper for content.

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 very concise, using three short, information-dense sentences plus a workflow arrow. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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-argument tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is listed, the output format, edge case behavior, and the surrounding workflow context. No further details are required.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema fully documents the interface. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific details because none are needed. It doesn't detract, hence a 4.

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 lists downloaded papers and explicitly notes the return type (arXiv IDs only) and differentiates from related tools by directing to read_paper for content. The workflow arrow further situates the tool in the pipeline, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 explicitly provides a workflow (search_papers -> download_paper -> list_papers -> read_paper) and tells the user when to use an alternative ('use read_paper to access content'). This serves as both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, going beyond a simple definition.

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