List Papers

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full behavioral burden, yet it only notes that results are paginated (already implied by the limit/offset schema). Ordering, whether all indexed papers are returned, rate limits, and auth/permission requirements are all undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The verb, resource, return payload and pagination hint all appear immediately.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and pagination is covered by the schema. However, for a tool sitting among five search/get siblings, the description leaves the agent without enough context to know when this enumerated listing is the right call versus a search.

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%, so limit, offset and their defaults/max are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or semantic detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 indexed papers') plus what is returned (metadata) and the pagination nature. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not name or contrast any of the many search* siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

No statement of when to use this instead of 'search', 'search_fulltext', 'search_by_author', 'search_by_year', or 'get_collection_stats'. The description implies unfiltered enumeration only by omission, which is not explicit guidance.

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