extract_key_findings

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

With no annotations, the description must fully explain behavior. It mentions using an LLM but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or potential variability in output. This leaves significant gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous words. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It omits details about the output format, potential nondeterminism, and resource implications of using an LLM, which are relevant for an AI 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds general context about the summary content but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'focus_area' is merely labeled 'Optional focus area').

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 verb 'Generate' and the resource 'structured summary of contributions, methods, experiments, and limitations', which is distinct from sibling tools that download, retrieve sections, or search 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_paper_sections' or 'download_paper'. The description lacks context on prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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