perseus_research

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the tool is read-only, degrades gracefully when unreachable, and communicates via JSON-RPC over stdio without a shell. This transparency is good, though rate limits or authentication details are omitted.

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 concise with three sentences, each providing essential information. It is front-loaded with the primary function and avoids unnecessary details.

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?

The description covers the main functionality, external dependency, graceful degradation, and communication protocol. However, it does not detail the return value structure, which is somewhat compensated by mentioning 'inject per-paper Methods/Results blocks.' Overall, it is mostly complete for a read-only search tool.

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?

The only parameter 'limit' has a schema description that is vague ('Value for limit parameter'). The tool description does not add further semantic meaning for this parameter. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra value.

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 searches an external paper-search MCP server for scientific literature and injects per-paper Methods/Results blocks. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it is for external search and grounding claims in published studies.

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 advises using the tool to ground claims in published studies, providing clear context. It mentions self-gating on research.enabled and graceful degradation, but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or scenarios.

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