generate-literature-review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral steps (search, summarize, compare) but does not mention output format, external dependencies, or side effects (e.g., session updates). This is only partially transparent.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and lists the method succinctly. No redundant 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 simple parameter and no output schema, the description explains the high-level process and expected outcome (a comprehensive review). However, it lacks details on the review's structure or return format, and does not address potential constraints or interactions with session state, leaving minor gaps.

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% with a clear description for 'topic'. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('comprehensive AI literature review') and outlines the process (searching arXiv, summarizing, comparing). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'summarize-paper' or 'compare-papers'.

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 clearly implies the tool is for generating a comprehensive review on a given topic, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over narrower sibling tools or include exclusions, so it misses the full 'when vs alternatives' guidance.

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