read_paper

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: discloses caching behavior ('second call sends no request'), the 200-character passage cap, the licence returned, that it never logs in and halts at bot checks, and what happens on failure. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope; each sentence carries distinct operational information (modes, caching, truncation, failure routing) 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?

With no output schema, the description fully covers return shape (full text by section with licence, or outline plus passages) and error behavior, which is what an agent needs to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by tying `query` to passage/section/page results and `section` to the outline from an earlier call, and by explaining the passage-length constraint applied to returned text.

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+resource ('Read a paper's text') and immediately distinguishes two operating modes: fetching an open copy in full versus returning only an outline with short passages for user-supplied papers. This differentiates it from metadata siblings like get_paper and search_papers.

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 clear triggering context and explicitly routes the agent to add_local_paper when no open copy can be read, and notes the zotero:/local: identifier paths. It lacks explicit 'use X instead when Y' statements against all siblings (e.g. get_paper), so it stops 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.