inspect_papers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that no files are saved and enumerates the possible fulltext.status values (available, metadata_only, restricted, not_found, unknown), giving the agent concrete knowledge of what to expect from the tool's output.

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 three short sentences, each adding a distinct piece of information: purpose, input source and side effect disclaimer, and output status vocabulary. There is no redundancy or filler content; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the input origin, the operation, and the meaning of status values. An agent has all necessary context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the response.

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 only defines paper_ids as an array of strings, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that these IDs come from search_papers, adding critical semantic context about the parameter's origin and intended use. It does not provide format examples, but the schema already covers the type structure.

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 states 'Investigate detailed metadata and full-text availability for multiple papers at once,' which clearly identifies the tool's function and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings: search_papers finds papers, collect_papers saves them, and get_collected_papers retrieves saved ones, while this tool inspects details without saving.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Pass paper_id returned by search_papers,' establishing a clear workflow after searching. It also warns 'Does not save files,' which implicitly differentiates it from collect_papers and tells the agent when not to use this tool for saving purposes.

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