summarize_paper

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states what the summary covers, omitting any mention of side effects, read-only nature, or limitations (e.g., dependence on the provided abstract). It does not contradict annotations because none exist, but it fails to convey critical behavioral context.

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 tight and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by a clear bullet list of content areas. There is no filler or redundant phrasing, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool has a complex generative output and two simple inputs, but the description omits operational details like how the abstract should be formatted, whether the summary uses only the abstract or the full paper, and any constraints on input quality. Even though an output schema exists (not shown), the description leaves too much unspecified for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention `title` or `abstract` at all, leaving their roles and expected formats entirely to inference. This is a critical gap that forces the agent to guess what data to pass.

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 that the tool generates a research-oriented summary of a paper and lists the four covered sections (Problem, Approach, Results, Contribution). This gives an unambiguous purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like extract_methodology or compare_papers.

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 that the tool is for creating a general summary, but it never explicitly says when to prefer it over alternatives such as extract_limitations or find_research_gaps. There is no guidance on prerequisites or scenarios that would route an agent here versus other tools.

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