summarize-paper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output type ('structured summary') and the 'single paper' constraint, but does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, or whether it is read-only. This is minimal viable transparency for a simple tool.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the tool's purpose, the second gives usage guidance. No wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite low complexity and full schema coverage, there is no output schema and the description only vaguely references 'structured summary' without specifying the summary's format or fields. This lack of return-value detail leaves a gap for the agent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by instructing the agent to use the id returned by discover-papers, providing integration context beyond the schema's simple format example.

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 summarizes a single paper via its arXiv id and produces a structured summary. The verb 'summarize' and resource 'single paper by its arXiv id' are specific, and the mention of discover-papers distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare-papers and generate-literature-review.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: after getting an id from discover-papers. It implies a workflow (discover first, then summarize) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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