vaglio_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the retrieval strategy (native readers then Unpaywall), storage behavior, the 'read_depth' reporting logic, and the honest failure mode (returns metadata-only depth). It adds valuable transparency beyond the structured fields.

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 sentences: first states the core purpose, second outlines the process, third clarifies the outcome. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 complexity of the tool (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers workflow and behavior but lacks parameter details and return value structure. It is minimally complete for an agent to understand the tool's main function but incomplete for correct parameter usage.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (doi, pmcid, title, oa_url, source, arxiv_id), leaving the agent without necessary context for correct invocation.

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 it retrieves and stores the body of a work, with a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools (search, status, sources, appraise, inscribe) by focusing on full-text retrieval and storage.

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 when full-text retrieval is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. It provides context of the fallback process but lacks clear exclusions or alternative tool references.

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