compare-papers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a structured JSON comparison matrix, which is a key behavioral outcome, but it does not define what dimensions are compared, how input IDs are validated, or whether any side effects exist. The description is adequate for a simple read-like tool but lacks depth on failure modes or processing details.

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 clear sentence that front-loads the action and scope, with no redundant filler or extraneous details. It efficiently conveys the core functionality and output format.

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 low complexity and full schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient, but the lack of an output schema means the agent is not informed about the actual fields or structure of the comparison matrix. It states the output type but not its contents, which could be important for downstream selection. Overall, it's a minimal viable description with a clear gap in matrix details.

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 schema already fully documents the single paperIds parameter (arXiv IDs, min 2, max 5), giving 100% coverage. The description only restates the count range, adding no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the verb 'compare' and resource 'research papers' with an explicit range (2-5), distinguishing it from sibling tools like summarize-paper or check-citations. The output is also specified as a 'structured JSON comparison matrix,' making the purpose 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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, but the phrase 'Compare 2-5 research papers side-by-side' implies the tool is intended for direct multi-paper comparisons. There is no mention of when to prefer this over summarize-paper or check-citations, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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