Paper Pilot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool finds similar papers but doesn't explain how similarity is determined, what the output format is, whether it's a read-only operation, or any limitations like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to understanding the core functionality.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, behavioral traits, or full parameter usage, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively. The lack of annotations and output schema increases the need for descriptive detail, which isn't met.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'seed paper title or DOI' but doesn't cover the 'limit' or 'open_access_only' parameters. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage, especially for the two parameters not referenced at all.

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's purpose: 'Find similar papers starting from a seed paper title or DOI.' It specifies the action ('Find similar papers') and the required input ('seed paper title or DOI'), making the intent understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'search_literature' or 'research_topic', which might also involve finding papers, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'search_literature' or 'research_topic', leaving the agent without context for tool selection. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement, with no explicit when/when-not instructions.

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