ask_library

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, API key requirement, and rate limits (1/month free, 200/day Pro), all beyond the input schema.

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 clear and front-loaded with the primary action. It includes essential details but is slightly verbose (5 sentences), though each sentence adds value. Could be slightly tighter but is efficient overall.

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 all necessary context: what it does, how to use it (scope, required params), behavioral traits (read-only, auth, rate limits), and its relationship to siblings. No gaps given the tool's 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by mentioning limit default and maximum, and the alternative scoping by name or ID, but this is only slightly beyond the schema.

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 answers questions using saved papers with arXiv citations. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'find_gaps' by contrasting what the user HAS versus what is MISSING.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (over saved papers) versus alternatives (inverse of find_gaps). Also explains optional scoping to a collection and mentions rate limits (free vs Pro) and required API key.

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