Professor Amir Ghaffarianhoseini — Architecture Research

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is in disclosing that results are 'verified' and that missing records are not inferred rather than guessed at. The note that the full co-author list is preserved also hints at output shape, though it doesn't describe the not-found response explicitly.

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 no filler: the action, the resource, the key, the output trait, and the failure behavior all in one clause chain. Nothing could be removed without losing signal.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool whose annotations already declare safety and idempotency, the description covers the key behaviors an agent needs: exact lookup, verified records, and no inference on misses. Only DOI format expectations are left unstated, which is a minor gap given the closed-world lookup.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden, and it does clarify that the DOI is an exact record identifier. It adds nothing about DOI formatting or the 250-character limit, so an agent gets the semantic role but not validation expectations.

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?

Names a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (verified bibliographic record) plus the lookup key (DOI), which distinguishes it from the search sibling. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_amir_research_profile or search_amir_research, so differentiation is inferred from the singular record scope rather than stated.

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 phrase 'missing records are not inferred' implies this is an exact-lookup tool for known DOIs and that it will not fabricate or substitute results, which usefully signals when not to rely on it. However, it never names an alternative tool or states the condition that would route an agent to search_amir_research instead.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that this returns a pre-existing public profile rather than computing anything, but says nothing about return shape, size, or whether the content is stable across calls.

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 the verb first and no filler. It is dense with undefined nouns, but every clause nominally carries content, so there is no obvious waste to trim.

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 and no parameters, the description is the only signal about what comes back, and it only names four fuzzy content categories without explaining their shape or relationship. Enough to know it is a profile read, not enough to predict 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument, fixed-target retrieval.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Retrieve") and enumerates the resource contents: profile, research fields, identity evidence, language entry points. However, terms like "architecture profile" and "identity evidence" are opaque jargon, and the description never distinguishes this tool from siblings search_amir_research and get_amir_publication_citation.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus search_amir_research or get_amir_publication_citation, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The words "existing" and "public" imply a fixed read of a preset profile, but the agent is left to infer that.

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

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that it returns source-linked metadata rather than generated findings or global literature results. It does not describe pagination or rate limits, but the annotations carry the safety profile.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then the key scope boundary. Every sentence adds useful information with no repetition or 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, scope limitation, and return nature, which is sufficient for a basic search call. However, with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, it leaves important parameter semantics unexplained, especially the kind filter and limit.

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 for all parameter meaning. It only hints that queries may include controlled Persian/Chinese terms and says nothing about the kind enum values, the limit parameter, or query length constraints. This is a partial but insufficient compensation for the coverage gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: search existing public research and academic-service records. It usefully rules out a global literature search and generated findings, which clarifies the scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling profile and citation tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 finding existing records and explicitly excludes global literature search and generated findings. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus get_amir_research_profile or get_amir_publication_citation, so the agent must infer routing.

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