paper_deliver

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It never says that printing is an external, hard-to-reverse side effect, whether files are written and where, or what permissions/printer availability are required — significant omissions for a tool whose policy can trigger a physical print.

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 front-loaded phrase with no filler, and the formats are listed compactly. Its brevity, however, reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

The tool has a nested object parameter, no output schema, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage, so the description must do all the work — yet it only restates the formats. An agent cannot determine what 'spec' should contain or what happens on delivery.

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 0% across all three parameters. The description lists delivery formats that partially map to the 'policy' enum, but it never names the parameter, and the nested 'spec' object and 'printer' parameter remain completely unexplained.

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 names a specific verb pair (generate paper + deliver) and a resource, plus the concrete delivery formats (print/PDF/HTML/text). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling paper_build, which sounds like it also produces a paper, so an agent could confuse the two.

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, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as paper_build. The phrase '按环境交付' hints that the channel is chosen by environment, but this is left for the agent to infer rather than stated.

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