get_author_papers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the Args mention limit and offset, but the description does not disclose response shape, pagination behavior, rate limits, error cases, or whether the result is ordered. This is thin for a tool with no annotation backing.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a scannable Args list. Every sentence earns its place; there is no padding or repetition of the schema.

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?

For a simple list-by-author endpoint with an output schema, the call parameters are well covered. The main gaps are contextual: no alternative routing to sibling tools, no behavioral notes about ordering or limits, and no warning about potential long lists despite the offset parameter. Still, the output schema reduces the need to document return values.

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 Args block fully compensates: author_id is identified as a Semantic Scholar ID, limit is given a range (1-1000) and default (10), and offset is described as a pagination offset. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get papers written by a specific author.' This is unambiguous and implicitly separates the tool from siblings like get_author or search_papers, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you have an author_id and want that author's papers. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond author_id, and no mention of alternatives like search_papers for keyword search or get_author for profile details.

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