workspace_plan_external_imports_for_paper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does not disclose whether this tool mutates the workspace, creates a queue, performs network fetches, or simply returns a read-only plan. The word 'Plan' hints at a non-executing action, but this is not explicit enough for an agent to safely predict side effects.

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 short sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the main action and object. The main issue is not length but ambiguity in the verb 'Plan'.

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, and related sibling tools, the description is under-specified. An agent cannot determine the return value, whether executing the plan changes state, or how this paper-specific tool relates to the result- and queue-specific variants. More operational context 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?

The schema has one parameter, paper_id, with 0% description coverage. The phrase 'one stored paper' at least implies that paper_id must refer to an existing paper in the workspace, which adds some meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain where to find valid paper IDs, what format they take, or how this paper_id relates to the imported arXiv papers.

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 names a verb and a resource: 'Plan external arXiv imports visible in one stored paper.' It conveys some scope, and the paper focus helps distinguish it from the result/queue sibling tools. However, 'plan' is ambiguous: it does not explain whether this returns a plan, schedules imports, or lists importable papers, so the purpose remains vague.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus the closely related workspace_plan_external_imports_for_result and workspace_plan_external_imports_for_queue. The only signal is the word 'paper' in the name and 'one stored paper' in the description. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection criteria are given.

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