Metis · Librarian — Extract Structured

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

With no annotations, the description bears full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool runs a fixed question set over the indexed library (PaperQA2) and assembles a markdown table with citations. It does not mention any destructive actions, which is appropriate for a read operation.

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 (6 sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value. No fluff or repetition.

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 three parameters (one required) and an output schema exists, the description covers the core functionality, parameter details, prerequisite, and use case. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description richly documents all three parameters: topic with example, fields with default set, and scope with valid values and prerequisite instruction. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults.

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 extracts a structured, cited evidence brief from the PDF library using Elicit-style extraction, producing a markdown table. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by specifying the structured nature and fixed question set.

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 indicates the tool is useful for systematic-review scaffolding and implies prerequisite indexing via scope mention. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but provides sufficient context relative to siblings.

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