library_get_pdf_path

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description explicitly states '只读' (read-only), which conveys behavioral intent (no side effects). This is a key behavioral disclosure for a tool that retrieves a local path, though it doesn't mention potential errors or access restrictions.

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 a single, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary details and is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could have added a brief parameter hint without becoming verbose.

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 an output schema exists and the tool is simple (1 param), the description covers the main purpose and read-only nature. However, the lack of parameter semantics and usage context leaves gaps for an agent deciding between this and sibling tools, especially 'get_fulltext'.

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 must compensate for the parameter 'query', but it provides no details about how to formulate the query (e.g., title, DOI, full-text keywords). The single parameter is ambiguous, and the description adds no meaning beyond 'query'.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('PDF path') and indicates it returns the local path for matching documents. It is clearly distinct from siblings like 'get_fulltext' or 'search_metadata', though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 using this tool when you need a PDF path, and 'read-only' hints at safety, but it doesn't specify when to use it instead of 'library_get_fulltext' or 'library_search_metadata'. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the purpose is clear enough.

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