object_dossier

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it resolves an object and optionally fetches papers, but does not elaborate on what 'resolve' entails, potential side effects, or authorization needs. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Three sentences, no extraneous text. Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown) and is straightforward, the description is mostly complete. However, it could clarify what kind of objects are resolved (e.g., celestial), but the sibling tools provide context.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. Description adds meaning by explaining that 'with_papers' controls whether to attach papers, but does not detail the 'name' parameter beyond its schema type. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Resolve an object and, optionally, attach recent papers about it.' This clearly indicates the combined functionality of object resolution and literature lookup, distinguishing it from separate sibling tools like 'resolve_object' and 'search_literature'.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when a user asks "tell me about X" and wants both the numbers and the references.' Provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use.

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