collect_papers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses batch operation, local saving, legal constraints, partial success, and per-item statuses with a specific list of values. This provides substantial behavioral context beyond a vague 'collect papers' claim.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by critical constraints and return details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and the description covers the main behavioral aspects: what it does, constraints, partial success, and output statuses. It relies on the output schema for detailed return structure, which is appropriate. Minor gaps include no mention of storage location or how saved files are retrieved, but sibling get_collected_papers likely covers that.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'paper_ids' parameter. While the description does not add parameter-specific details, the parameter name is self-explanatory (IDs of papers to collect) and the tool purpose makes its meaning clear. The lack of elaboration is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 identifies the tool's action (batch-fetch and locally save full-text PDFs) and resource (multiple papers' full-text PDFs). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_papers, inspect_papers, and get_collected_papers by focusing on the downloading/saving action.

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 description implies usage for collecting PDFs but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives. It notes legal constraints (only publicly/legally obtainable texts) but lacks clear 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' guidance relative to siblings.

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