Get a compact evidence brief for an imported paper with counts, screening results, top core papers, and citation keys within a set budget, without returning the full bundle.
Compact evidence brief for an imported paper: counts, screening, top core papers and citation keys. Bounded by budget; never returns the bundle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| budget | No | ||
| max_keys | No | ||
| max_papers | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real behavioral traits: output is size-bounded by `budget`, and the full bundle is deliberately never returned. It says nothing about prerequisites (must the paper be imported first?), failure modes, or what 'screening' counts represent, which leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents and followed by the bounding constraint. Slightly redundant wording ('Compact' + 'brief') but no filler sentences.
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 four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description must do more. It never defines what the brief looks like (structure of counts/screening), what citation keys are keyed to, or how the tool fails on an un-imported paper – all essential for correct invocation.
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% – all four parameters appear with types and defaults only. The description explains `budget` as the size bound and loosely maps 'top core papers' and 'citation keys' to max_papers/max_keys, but `name` is entirely unexplained and the interaction between budget and the two caps is not described.
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 the resource (an evidence brief for an imported paper) and enumerates its contents: counts, screening, top core papers, citation keys. It is clearly distinct from write/import siblings, but the near-identically named sibling paper_context is never addressed, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the text alone.
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 explicit statement of when to call this versus paper_context, paper_meta_get, or paper_research_prisma. The only implicit routing cue is 'never returns the bundle', which hints at a summary-vs-full-bundle distinction but never names the alternative tool or the precondition (e.g., that research must already be imported).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.