Paperlib MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (coverage statistics) but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation (likely, but not stated), what permissions might be required, whether it's computationally expensive, or how results are formatted beyond '覆盖率统计信息' (coverage statistics information). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's purpose, explaining the parameter's effect, and describing the return value. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter explanation more seamlessly.

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 moderate complexity (statistical analysis tool), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context about permissions, computational characteristics, or error conditions. The output schema existence reduces the need for return value details, but more operational context would be helpful.

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 for the single parameter, the description provides essential semantic clarification: 'doc_id: 文档 ID（可选，若无则返回全局统计）' explains that this parameter is optional and that omitting it returns global statistics. This adds meaningful context beyond what the schema's type information provides, though it doesn't specify format constraints or examples for valid document IDs.

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: '查看 GraphRAG 覆盖状态' (view GraphRAG coverage status) and '统计每个文档（或全局）的 entities、mentions、claims 覆盖率' (statistics for each document or globally for entities, mentions, claims coverage). It specifies the verb ('查看'/'统计') and resource ('GraphRAG 覆盖状态'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'graph_health_check' or 'ingest_status' that might also provide status information.

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 context through the optional doc_id parameter explanation: '若无则返回全局统计' (if not provided, returns global statistics). This gives some guidance on when to use with vs without the parameter. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like 'graph_health_check' or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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