list_papers

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly says this does not do a live re-fetch, reads from local metadata only, returns an empty list when nothing has been downloaded, and describes the compact mode. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures that help the agent predict behavior without invoking the 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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: what is listed, source of data, return fields, compact behavior, empty-list behavior, and workflow placement. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple parameter set, readOnlyHint annotation, and absence of an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to know: what is returned, the data source, the compact option, the empty-list edge case, and the intended workflow. No critical information is missing.

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 100% (the compact parameter is fully documented in the schema). The description restates the default and compact behavior but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the parameter semantic burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource—'List all papers that have been downloaded and stored locally via download_paper'—and explicitly distinguishes it from live re-fetching. It also names the exact fields returned, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling search/read tools.

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 gives clear workflow context: 'search_papers -> download_paper -> list_papers -> read_paper', which tells an agent when in the workflow this tool applies. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or point to alternatives like search_papers for live results, but the 'no live re-fetch' phrasing and workflow chain effectively convey the intended usage.

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