resolve_paper

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which the description does not elaborate on. The description adds no details about side effects, caching, normalization behavior, or potential variability in output. Given annotations already cover basic behavior, the description offers minimal added transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently.

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?

While an output schema exists (not shown) and the description does not need to explain return values, the lack of parameter documentation and usage guidance makes the description incomplete for a tool with four optional parameters and no required fields. The agent receives insufficient context to use the tool reliably.

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% and the description provides no explanation of the four parameters (year, query, title, authors). It does not clarify their roles, precedence, or expected formats. This is a critical gap for effective tool 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 the tool resolves a DOI, URL, or title query into a normalized paper candidate. It uses a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('paper candidate'), and context from sibling names like 'batch_resolve' suggests this is for single resolution, distinguishing it from batch alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'batch_resolve' or 'fetch_paper'. It does not mention contexts where resolution might fail or when other tools are preferred.

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