kci_harvest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals non-obvious behavior: the date window refers to KCI ingest datestamp rather than publication date, 'contains' is not a server-side query, and results are slices of the accession stream. This is genuinely transparent about how the tool behaves.

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 compact and well-structured: the core identity comes first, then parameter semantics, then a useful mental-model warning. No sentence is wasted, and formatting highlights the most important caveats.

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 description covers protocol, authentication, date semantics, filtering behavior, sets, and the right mental model for results. It does not explain resumption_token or max_records behavior, and it could be more explicit about when to prefer kci_search. Still, for an OAI-PMH harvesting tool, this is a strong and unusually complete description.

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. It explains date_from/date_to format and semantics, clarifies 'contains' behavior, and enumerates the set_spec values. However, max_records and resumption_token are not explained beyond their names/defaults, leaving a small but real semantic gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Harvest KCI by OAI-PMH'. It also explicitly reframes the tool as a harvesting tool rather than a search tool, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like kci_search. The first sentence makes the tool's identity unmistakable.

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 gives clear context: date selection is on ingest datestamp, there is no query interface, and 'contains' is applied client-side. This implies that users needing true search should use another tool, but it does not explicitly name kci_search or say when not to use this tool. Still, the guidance is strong and practical.

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