find_independent_software

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that ranking is based on reuse signal (code repo, Software Heritage archival, usage), not citations. It also specifies that results exclude engines authored by the original paper's team. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or output format.

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 a single sentence with one parenthetical and two em-dashes, making it moderately clear but slightly dense. It could be broken into shorter sentences for better readability, but every part contributes meaning.

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 no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the tool returns (e.g., a list of software with metadata). It only describes input and ranking, omitting output format, error cases, and default limit behavior (though limit defaults to 8 in schema). This leaves gaps for effective use.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains that DOI is used to look up authors and topic is a short description. However, the 'limit' parameter is not mentioned at all, and no details about default values or constraints are provided.

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 finds reusable software for replicating a claim that is not authored by the original team, with specific ranking criteria (reuse signal vs. citations). It explicitly distinguishes from citation-based tools and provides the key inputs (DOI and topic).

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 implies usage when one wants to find independent software for replication, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (radar, replication_status). No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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