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 burden. It discloses only that output is Markdown and 'deterministic', but does not say whether content is returned inline or written to a file, what the plan contains, ordering guarantees, or whether any permissions are needed for a mutation/export operation.

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?

One tight sentence with no filler, and the artifact type is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the missing guidance rather than being a virtue of restraint.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and three parameters at 0% documentation leave the agent without enough to invoke this correctly. For an export tool nested among numerous near-named siblings, substantially more explanation is required.

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?

'selected papers' hints at paper_ids, but schema coverage is 0% and the description never explains the 'focus' filter or 'max_candidates_per_paper' (default 3), which are the parameters an agent most needs to reason about. It fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb (Export), output artifact (deterministic Markdown reading plan), and scope (selected papers). However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling export tools such as workspace_export_paper_reading_report or workspace_export_reading_bundle, which an agent must choose between.

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 statement of when to use this export versus the sibling exports (reading_bundle, result_reading_context, reading_session_summary, paper_reading_report), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer the routing entirely from the name.

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