connect_papers

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (write, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral rules beyond them: evidence and condition requirements for supports/contradicts, and the weak status of 'similar'. It does not cover permissions or the shape of the response, but it meaningfully extends the annotation surface.

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 terse sentences with the core constraint (evidence required) front-loaded and the caveat about 'similar' appended. It is well-sized and wastes little, though the terseness leaves gaps that a slightly fuller description could have closed.

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 mutation tool with a nested relation object, eight relation kinds, and no output schema, the description covers the most important constraint (evidence for support/contradiction) but omits guidance on version_id/target_version and the remaining kinds, so it is only adequately complete.

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%, so the description carries the parameter burden. It explains the evidence_ids/explanation requirements for supports/contradicts and the semantics of 'similar', but it says nothing about version_id or target_version and leaves five other relation kinds unaddressed, so it only partially compensates.

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?

States a specific verb (save/store) and resource (literature relations between papers), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like add_work or verify_work. It does not name a specific sibling to contrast against, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It implies usage rules by mandating that supports/contradicts relations carry evidence from both ends and concrete conditions, and it flags 'similar' as only a clue. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives, leaving routing to inference.

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