research_list_library

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('List'), but does not explicitly mention that it is non-destructive or discuss permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value by detailing a parameter. There is no redundant or irrelevant content.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not cover return values. It comprehensively explains input parameters and basic behavior, but lacks details such as sorting direction (asc/desc) or pagination limits, which would enhance completeness for a list tool.

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 fully compensates by explaining all 6 parameters (limit, offset, sort_by, primary_category, min_citations, venue) with their purpose, defaults, and examples (e.g., 'e.g. cs.LG', 'e.g. NeurIPS'), adding significant meaning beyond the schema properties.

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 'List papers in the local library with pagination and optional filters', specifying the action (list), resource (papers in local library), and distinguishing features (pagination and filters) that differentiate it from sibling tools like research_search_papers and research_query_library.

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 for listing papers with filters and pagination, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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