expand_from_work

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral details such as whether the operation is read-only, what the output shape is, or how edge cases are handled. The burden is on the description, and it does not carry it.

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. It is concise and front-loads the core purpose, though it could be expanded with more detail without losing conciseness.

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 no annotations, zero parameter descriptions, and no usage guidance, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly. There is no mention of output behavior or how to configure the expansion despite the presence of five parameters.

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 only hints at the 'by' parameter through 'citations, references, or similar papers.' It does not explain 'identifier', 'limit', 'sources', or 'source_modes', leaving most parameters semantically opaque.

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 that the tool expands from a known work using citations, references, or similar papers, providing a specific verb and resource. It is reasonably distinct from siblings like search_literature, though it overlaps with find_related_articles on 'similar papers'.

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 from a known work but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tools are not referenced.

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