read_hal_paper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the save_path parameter implies downloading or saving the PDF, but does not detail caching, overwriting, error handling, or network requirements.

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: a single sentence for purpose followed by a clear parameter list. Every part is necessary and front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of many sibling read tools, the description is largely complete. It explains purpose, parameters, and return type. However, it does not specify the expected paper_id format or behavior on missing 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively explains both parameters: paper_id as HAL identifier and save_path as download directory with default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles and types.

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 reads and extracts text from a HAL paper, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which target other repositories (e.g., read_arxiv_paper).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like download_hal or other read_*_paper tools. The user must infer from the tool name that it is specific to HAL.

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