rank_papers

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the scoring formula and data sources (topic_prefs.json, papers.jsonl), but does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. Missing safety profile.

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 efficient sentences: first states purpose, second details formula and data sources. No fluff, front-loaded key information.

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?

Adequate for a ranking tool with 2 parameters, high schema coverage, and output schema present. Lacks prerequisites (e.g., existence of topic_prefs.json), error handling, and limits. Appropriate but could be richer.

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 100% (both parameters described). Description adds context about the ranking formula and external files, but does not significantly enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb (score and rank) and resource (papers), with specific detail on the 4-factor weighted formula. Distinguishes from siblings like search_papers and filter_duplicates by focusing on ranking.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., filter_duplicates, search_papers). Implies it follows search/filtering, but no direct comparison or prerequisites stated.

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