generate_research_briefTurn any arXiv paper into an executive brief covering problem statement, methodology, key findings, and matching code.
Synthesize an executive research brief for a paper, including problem statement, methodology, key findings, and matching code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| arxiv_id | Yes | The arXiv identifier of the paper. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, fetches external data, has failure modes, requires network access, or modifies anything. The content list is useful but does not expose behavioral traits.
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 action and resource, then lists deliverable components. There is no filler or redundancy; every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's output.
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?
The tool has one well-documented parameter and an output schema, so basic invocation details are covered. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description does not fully convey when this synthesis tool should be chosen over combining get_paper_details and find_code_repositories, leaving a notable gap.
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% and the only parameter arxiv_id is already described as 'The arXiv identifier of the paper.' The description does not add further parameter meaning or examples, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 and resource: 'Synthesize an executive research brief for a paper,' and lists concrete content components. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_arxiv, get_paper_details, and find_code_repositories, which have different objectives.
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 does not mention siblings, prerequisites, or contexts where get_paper_details or find_code_repositories would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.