paper_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the answer and paper outputs are separated, but says nothing about where files are written, whether existing artifacts are overwritten, or what permissions/side effects apply to this generation 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?

A single compact sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and then the outputs. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness leaves behavioral and usage gaps unaddressed.

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 tool with a complex nested spec object, no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what is returned (paths? inline content?) and how the generated artifacts are delivered. It states the artifact types but omits the return contract entirely.

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 100% and the single nested spec object is documented inline (title/subject/paper/questions with stem/answer/atoms/work_mm), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 and resource (出一张卷 / produce a paper) and names both output artifacts (卷面 HTML and 答案 md), so the agent knows what it creates. It does not differentiate from the sibling paper_deliver, leaving the boundary to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The obvious sibling paper_deliver is never referenced, so the agent gets no help deciding which of the two paper tools to invoke.

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