list_saved_papers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic function. It does not mention potential behaviors such as pagination, ordering, rate limits, or the possibility of a large response set, leaving the agent without expectations for 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 one short sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the essential action and resource, making it easy to parse. It could be slightly more detailed, but for a parameterless list operation it is appropriately concise.

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 list operation with an output schema present, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks context about when to prefer this over 'search_saved_papers' or any notes on scale/performance, which would help an agent decide between tools confidently. The absence of usage guidance reduces completeness.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema is vacuous. Per the rubric, a 0-param tool earns a baseline of 4; there is nothing to add parameter-wise, and the description doesn't attempt to mislead.

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 the verb 'Return' and the resource 'all papers saved in the research library', making the primary purpose clear. It implies a comprehensive listing, which distinguishes it from the 'search_saved_papers' sibling that filters saved papers, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_saved_papers'. The description simply states what it does without context on scenarios where listing all saved papers is appropriate or when a search would be better.

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