citation_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it returns both citing and referenced papers, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential network latency, output size limits, or pagination behavior. With annotations covering the read-only nature, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that states the tool's function without superfluous detail. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: it returns citing and referenced papers. It could be slightly more explicit about whether results include metadata, but the level of detail is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including an example arXiv ID format. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 returns papers citing an arXiv paper and papers it references, using Semantic Scholar's citation graph. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_papers or read_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 description implies a clear use case: to get citation relationships for a specific arXiv paper. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to infer appropriate usage.

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