Paperlib MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the pack_id doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately concise and well-structured: it starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a brief explanation, and then lists Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the explanation into the initial statement for better flow.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but lacks context on usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, which are important for a tool with no annotations. It's adequate but has clear gaps in guiding effective use.

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?

The description adds minimal parameter semantics: it mentions 'pack_id: 证据包 ID' (evidence pack ID), which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's type (integer). However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description doesn't fully compensate—it lacks details like format constraints or examples. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is slightly higher, but it's still basic.

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's purpose: '获取证据包详情' (Get evidence pack details) and '查看已保存的证据包内容和统计信息' (View saved evidence pack content and statistical information). It specifies the verb ('获取'/'查看') and resource ('证据包'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_evidence_packs' or 'build_evidence_pack', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_evidence_packs' (which likely lists packs) or 'build_evidence_pack' (which likely creates packs), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The only implied usage is when you need details of a specific pack, but this is too vague for effective tool selection.

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