Metis · Librarian — Search Literature Extended

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The focus is on parameter behavior rather than operational traits.

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 and uses a structured list for arguments, making it easy to parse. However, the initial sentence could be more front-loaded with the tool's primary function before diving into 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on input behavior and search scope. It covers defaults, field targets, and the archive toggle, which is adequate for a search tool of moderate complexity.

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 description provides clear, meaningful explanations for all three parameters (query, include_archived, limit), adding value since the input schema has 0% coverage. Default values and meanings are well articulated.

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 it searches literature across specific fields (basename, disease, etc.) and allows inclusion of archived items. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from its likely sibling search_literature, leaving the 'extended' aspect somewhat inferred.

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 mentions default exclusion of archived items and the include_archived parameter, providing basic usage context. But it offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_literature or when not to use it.

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