get_paper_toc

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: fuzzy title matching and the sequential requirement to call before other content tools. Does not detail return format, but with annotations covering safety, this is a minor gap.

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 and well-structured: first sentence states the purpose, second provides usage order, and third explains the parameter. No unnecessary 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 single-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers purpose, usage sequence, and parameter semantics adequately. It does not describe the return format, but given the simple nature and existing annotations, the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

Input schema only defines title as a string. The description explains the meaning of the title parameter, notes that fuzzy matching is supported, and advises providing it as accurately as possible. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 retrieves the table of contents of a paper. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('table of contents'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like grep_paper_content by positioning itself as the first step before content reading.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call this tool FIRST before reading a paper's content, then directs to grep_paper_content for reading chapters or searching. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative tool.

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