repository_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a useful limitation—PDF access is not verified—but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or response behavior beyond the returned content list.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the access caveat. Every sentence adds either scope or a behavioral note.

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 is simple and the description indicates the returned content, which is helpful because there is no output schema. However, it omits parameter meaning and usage context, so an agent still has gaps for correct invocation.

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?

There is one required parameter (eprintId) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not. It mentions 'per file' without explaining that the input is an eprint ID or what the numeric pattern means, leaving parameter meaning ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb ('Ambil') and specific resources ('metadata, abstrak, dan label pembatasan akses per file'), so an agent knows what is returned. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like catalog_item or repository_search, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. The caveat 'Akses PDF tidak diverifikasi' is a behavioral note, not a usage rule.

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