find_related_papers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says the search is semantic and does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, whether it searches the user's library or an external corpus, or what the returned related papers actually contain. The verb 'Find' implies no mutation, but other behavioral traits are left undisclosed.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action. Every word contributes to the core meaning. This is appropriately concise for a two-parameter tool.

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 schema fully covers both parameters, so invoking the tool is straightforward. However, there is no output schema and no statement about the search scope, relation criteria, or return format. The agent can call the tool, but some ambiguity remains about what it will receive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both item_key and limit are already documented. The description just rephrases item_key as 'a given paper' and adds no extra constraints, format details, or interaction between limit and results. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action ('Find'), a specific resource ('papers related to a given paper'), and a method ('semantic search'). The required item_key makes it inferable that this is paper-to-paper relatedness rather than query search, but it does not explicitly contrast it with zotero_semantic_search.

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 'related to a given paper' implies that the tool should be used when the agent already has a Zotero paper key and wants connected papers. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling tool is named.

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