send_papers

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It details deduplication, skipping already-sent papers, auto-splitting batches, handling of open-access PDFs, Zotero integration, and dry_run behavior. This is comprehensive for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value, covering edge cases and behaviors. It could be slightly more concise, but it remains informative without unnecessary repetition.

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's complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers input formats, behaviors, side effects, error handling, and expected output (receipt). The existing output schema obviates the need to describe return values.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains the accepted formats for refs, the effect of force, dry_run, and the optionality of collections. While it doesn't restate defaults, it adds practical context beyond the schema.

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 tool sends papers to an e-reader by arXiv id, DOI, or title. It uses specific verbs ('send') and resources ('papers'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'file_papers' and 'send_queue' which have different actions.

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?

The description provides guidance on when to use the tool, including using dry_run for previews, checking list_collections for placement, and noting limitations like no duplicate protection without Zotero. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but the context is clear given sibling tools.

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