list_papers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds useful behavioral details: it returns only arXiv IDs and returns an empty list if no papers are downloaded. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it, though it stops short of describing rate limits or other edge cases.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then detailing return format and edge case. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 simple zero-parameter read-only tool, the description fully covers purpose, output format, empty-list case, and its position in the workflow. An output schema is absent, but the return description is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information to convey. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameters.

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 lists papers downloaded via download_paper, specifies the scope (local storage), and clarifies the return type (arXiv IDs only). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by referencing read_paper for content and search_papers in the workflow.

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 an explicit workflow (search_papers -> download_paper -> list_papers -> read_paper), establishing exactly when this tool fits. It also tells the user to use read_paper for content access, which is a clear alternative.

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