Build research report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does add useful behavioral context by saying the report is 'cited' and that facts and recommendations are 'separated.' It does not, however, disclose side effects, required permissions, latency, or what happens on failure, which would be valuable for a report-building operation.

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 sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the action and target artifact. Every phrase earns its place, and the key output trait is included without redundancy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in varied situations. It omits query semantics, limit behavior, output format beyond facts/recommendations, and how this relates to the many sibling research tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only partially does. The phrase 'literature, implementation, or reproducibility' maps to the mode enum values, but query and limit are not explained at all, leaving two of three parameters semantically underdocumented.

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 names a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('cited literature, implementation, or reproducibility report') with a clear output characteristic ('facts and recommendations separated'). It is clear about what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with similar siblings like research_topic or research_method.

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 three report types imply when the tool should be used, and the mention of citations and separated facts/recommendations gives some context. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisite conditions.

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