list_paper_sections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses two important traits: the result is scoped to top-level titles only (not subsections), and returned titles must be passed verbatim downstream. It does not cover failure behavior, e.g. papers whose full text is unavailable, which is the remaining gap for a zero-annotation 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, the context-saving rationale second, the handoff to get_paper_section third. Front-loaded with 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 read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (top-level section titles) and the downstream usage contract, which is everything an agent needs to invoke it and act on the result.

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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already explains arxiv_id with an example format. The description's "pass one verbatim" refers to returned section titles rather than the input parameter, so it adds no extra meaning to arxiv_id beyond what the schema provides.

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 section headings of an arXiv paper") and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling that fetches content, get_paper_section. An agent can tell it apart from search_papers, get_paper_abstract, and get_paper_prompt without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ("when the full paper is too long for context") and names the follow-up alternative ("pass one verbatim to get_paper_section"). The when-to-use and what-to-do-next are both spelled out rather than inferred.

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