get_collected_papers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that omitting paper_ids returns a list and that the output includes path and SHA-256, but it does not explicitly state read-only safety, error conditions, or required permissions.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by an important conditional usage. No redundant or filler content.

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 with one optional parameter and an output schema is indicated, so the description need not enumerate return values. It covers the main behavior and the conditional list mode; only minor gaps such as error handling and permission requirements remain.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that paper_ids is optional and that omitting it returns a list, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not describe the expected string format of IDs or what happens if IDs are provided but not found in the collection.

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 states the tool returns local information (path, SHA-256) of collected papers, with a specific verb (返す) and resource (収集済み論文のローカル情報). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on already-collected papers' local metadata and adding the list behavior when paper_ids is omitted.

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: call this when you need local path/hash of collected papers. It explains the conditional behavior of omitting paper_ids, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools like search_papers/inspect_papers, nor any exclusions.

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