connect_papers

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying the returned elements (paths, edge directions, papers) and the external Inciteful backing, going beyond what annotations signal without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with the core action front-loaded and the return values in the second sentence. There is no repetition or filler.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the input relationship and high-level return format. It does not explain max_paths behavior or path/edge-detail semantics, but the schema and annotations cover the remaining essentials, so the gaps are minor.

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?

The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema: from/to are already documented as DOI/OpenAlex/PMID/identifiers, and max_paths is neither described in the schema nor the tool description. With 67% schema coverage, the description leaves the max_paths parameter semantically unaddressed.

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 action ('find citation paths'), the resource ('between two papers'), the source ('using Inciteful'), and the return contents. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like similar_papers or get_paper.

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 use case is implied—when you have two papers and want citation paths—but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over similar_papers or discover_papers, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer the fitting scenario from the purpose alone.

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