read_paper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool reads text and respects a character limit, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or describe the return format. This leaves some ambiguity about what the output looks like.

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 paragraphs, with the purpose stated first, followed by a step and the argument descriptions. No unnecessary words, every sentence serves a clear function.

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 description covers the primary actions and parameters but omits details about the return value (e.g., format, encoding). Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the agent can expect. It also does not mention error conditions or limits beyond max_chars.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It does so adequately: paper_id is described as the numeric ID from sibling tools, and max_chars is described as the maximum text length to return. This adds significant semantic value beyond the raw schema types.

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 purpose as reading the full text of a paper to look up details, specifying the verb 'read' and the resource 'paper'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_papers (which presumably returns metadata) and list_library (which lists available papers) by focusing on retrieving full text.

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?

Explicitly advises to use search_papers or list_library first to obtain the paper_id, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the prerequisite instruction implies that directly calling without an ID is inappropriate.

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