workspace_get_paper

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that metadata and counts are returned, but doesn't disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if paper_id is invalid), whether the operation is read-only, or what 'counts' refer to (e.g., citations, downloads). The description is not misleading but is minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core purpose efficiently. However, it might be slightly too sparse for a tool with no annotations, but the conciseness itself is appropriate.

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 the tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, the description could be sufficient if comprehensive. Yet it omits critical context: whether the workspace must be open (suggested by sibling open_workspace), what the return structure looks like (metadata fields, count types), and how missing IDs are handled. An agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior from this description alone.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for paper_id; only its name and type are provided. The description adds only that it refers to 'one stored paper', which clarifies the paper is in the workspace but doesn't explain ID format, how to obtain it, or any constraints. With minimal schema help and minimal description compensation, the parameter semantics are weak.

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 a clear verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('metadata and counts for one stored paper'). It is unambiguous about what is retrieved, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like load_paper or workspace_get_dependencies. Implicitly, the 'metadata and counts' scope sets it apart, but the description doesn't name alternatives.

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 its siblings. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to open the workspace first, which is implied by the open_workspace sibling), nor does it specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over others. The usage context is left entirely to inference.

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