get_citation_graph

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 reveals that results are cached, that the response includes the data source used, and defines the traversal directions. It could additionally mention pagination or limit behavior, but the current disclosure is solid for a read-only lookup tool.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first clause and each subsequent sentence carrying useful information. There is no filler or repetition of schema details that are already visible.

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 this tool's complexity, the description covers the essential invocation details: ID formats, direction semantics, result nature, and caching. Since an output schema is present, the description does not need to explain return fields, and no critical calling information is missing.

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 adds real meaning by enumerating paper_id formats (DOI, OpenAlex ID, Semantic Scholar ID) and explaining direction values. The limit parameter is left to schema/default semantics, which is a minor gap given its simplicity.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Follow a paper's citation graph') and defines direction semantically. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like search_papers, paper_details, and get_bibtex because citation traversal is a unique operation.

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 provides concrete usage context by explaining accepted paper_id formats and the two direction modes with forward/backward semantics. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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