List Library

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering (newest first), optional tag filtering, and an extra output (the set of tags in use). It does not mention pagination or empty state, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler.

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?

For a one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: ordering, filtering, and supplementary tag reporting. The only minor gap is ambiguity about what 'newest' refers to (date added vs. publication date), but otherwise it is sufficient.

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 input schema already fully describes the tag parameter ('Only list papers carrying this tag'), and the description merely rephrases this concept. No additional examples, edge cases, or parameter nuances are added.

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 action (list) and resource (papers in your personal library), with specific behavioral details like newest-first ordering and optional tag filtering. It distinguishes itself from siblings such as search_papers and library_add.

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 context is unambiguous: this is for listing the user's own library, which contrasts with sibling search/retrieval tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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