litnet_answer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses that output is GENERATED prose, tagged type: synthesis, never re-extracted into the 正本, and saved outside 20-areas/research/. It also notes save writes to VAULT/20-areas/syntheses/ and that top_k is intentionally omitted so it tracks query_graph's default.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and then structured into a workflow line plus a tidy Args block. The closing rationale about omitting top_k is useful but slightly tangential for a selector, keeping it just under maximum efficiency.

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?

An output schema exists so return formatting needn't be explained, and the description covers behavior, all parameters, and the retrieval-to-synthesis pipeline. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, yet the description documents every parameter: entity (comma-separated, auto-extraction capped at 3), fmt (listing the actual auto|mechanism|compare|list|methods options the schema does not enumerate), save (target directory), and model. This more than compensates for the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: answer a literature question as a fixed-format CITED synthesis note, with the retrieve→synthesize pipeline spelled out. It clearly distinguishes itself from retrieval-oriented siblings like query_graph by emphasizing synthesized prose rather than raw material.

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?

Explains the workflow (query_graph retrieval then Claude writes a cited summary) and notes the entity auto-extraction cap of 3 with a pointer to AGENTS.md's SOP. It implies when synthesis beats raw retrieval, but never states an explicit 'use query_graph directly instead when X' exclusion, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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