literature_review

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: identifier resolution batching, deduplication, distance-2 similarity, seed exclusion from rankings, and the heuristic nature of labels. It also states 'No persistent review state is stored,' which reinforces the idempotent/read-only behavior. This goes beyond what annotations alone communicate.

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 moderately long but each sentence conveys distinct information: the core function, the iterative usage pattern, the batching/dedup behavior, the distance parameter, label heuristics, and the lack of persistent state. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and doesn't contain filler. It could be slightly more concise, but the density is justified given the tool's complexity.

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 the essential operational aspects: the seed range, the ranking types, the iterative expansion, the distance-2 rule, seed exclusion, label heuristics, and statelessness. It does not detail the exact structure of the returned rankings or the output schema (which is absent), but for a complex tool it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what it does and how to use it iteratively. Minor gaps remain in return format, but the description is relatively complete for the given complexity.

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 input schema itself provides descriptions for parameters, including the 'ids' field with supported identifiers and the 'sections' enum. The tool description does not add deeper parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'seed papers' as a general concept. Since the schema carries the parameter documentation (despite the 0% coverage metric referring to the description), a baseline of 3 is appropriate – the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't conflict or add much.

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: it builds and queries a literature-review graph from 1-500 seed papers and returns rankings of papers, authors, institutions, and journals. The verb 'build and query' is specific, and the resource is well-defined. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'similar_papers' or 'discover_papers' by focusing on a graph built from seeds and returning aggregated rankings.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'To add papers, call again with the returned seed_ids plus selected result paper_id values.' It also notes that multi-seed similarity uses distance 2 and seeds are excluded from rankings. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool is preferred over siblings or when not to use it, leaving some room for inference.

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