paper_read_text

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It correctly indicates read-only behavior (extracting from front pages) and that classification logic is not provided. However, it omits error handling, permissions, or file existence details.

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?

Two sentences: first defines functionality, second explains use case. No wasted words, clearly front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, description mentions returned text and metadata (Title/Author). It covers the main use case (classification). Could specify return format but overall adequate for a simple extraction tool.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by stating defaults (maxChars=6000, maxPages=3) and noting that title/abstract are usually in first 1-2 pages, aiding parameter tuning beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool extracts text and metadata from front pages of PDFs, and specifies it is used to check title/author/abstract for classification. It distinguishes from sibling tools (move, scan) which have different purposes.

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?

Description explicitly advises using this tool to check title/author/abstract for classification category. It does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear given sibling tools are unrelated.

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