workspace_export_cross_paper_reading_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that the output is deterministic Markdown; it says nothing about whether a file is written to disk or a string returned, permissions needed, how 'cross paper' differs behaviorally from other exports, or whether the operation is read-only.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. It is arguably too sparse given the tool's three undocumented parameters, but there is no wasted text.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, three parameters at 0% coverage, and a crowded family of export/reading-plan siblings, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine output destination, the meaning of 'focus' or 'max_candidates_per_paper,' or how this differs from the other export tools.

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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters. The description hints that paper_ids are the 'selected papers,' but adds nothing about 'focus' (what it filters or how) or 'max_candidates_per_paper' (what a candidate is, why it caps at 20). It fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Export a deterministic Markdown reading plan') and scopes it to 'selected papers,' so an agent knows what it produces. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling export tools (workspace_export_reading_bundle, workspace_export_paper_reading_report, workspace_export_result_reading_context), leaving the agent to guess which export is appropriate.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The phrase 'for selected papers' weakly implies that paper_ids must be supplied, but nothing tells the agent when this cross-paper plan is preferred over the other reading-plan/export siblings.

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