list_papers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful data-quality caveat: 'Some file names are not descriptive titles,' warning the agent that names may not match content. An output schema exists, so no return-shape detail is needed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what it returns, then when to use it, then the caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the name or schema.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the unit returned, the intended use, and the filename caveat.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed to enumerate the corpus.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the documents (PDF file names) in the indexed corpus') and clarifies the output unit is file names, not document contents. It does not explicitly name search_papers or ask_papers, but 'before searching' lightly signals the distinction.

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?

'Use it to check what the corpus covers before searching' gives a clear situational trigger and implicitly positions it upstream of search_papers. No explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use rules are given, so it falls short of a 5.

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