Plan external arXiv imports required for a specific result's reading path by mapping dependencies and recursive references into an actionable import list.
Plan external arXiv imports for one result's reading path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recursive | No | ||
| result_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must disclose side effects and behavior on its own. 'Plan external arXiv imports' suggests planning rather than executing, but it does not state whether the tool mutates state, accesses external services, requires permissions, or returns a plan. This leaves the agent guessing about observable effects.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It loses a point only because the term 'plan' is left vague; otherwise it is appropriately compact.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and only one sentence of description, an agent lacks information about what the plan contains, how recursive changes behavior, and what side effects or prerequisites apply. This is insufficient for a non-trivial planning tool with two parameters and many planning siblings.
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 compensate for the input schema's bare property names. It only implicitly explains result_id via 'one result' and says nothing about the recursive boolean, its default true behavior, or its effect on planning.
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 names a specific action (plan), resource (external arXiv imports), and scope (one result's reading path), so an agent can tell it apart from actual import tools like workspace_add_arxiv_paper. It does not explicitly distinguish from the queue/paper planning siblings, though the phrase 'for one result's' narrows the target.
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 phrase 'for one result's reading path' implies the tool is appropriate when planning imports for a single result, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives such as workspace_plan_external_imports_for_queue or workspace_plan_external_imports_for_paper are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.