historiograph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful side effects: it writes a PNG and a Pajek file, and returns a list of papers with local and global citation counts. However, it omits where files are written, whether the operation is long-running, and any entitlement/permission implications beyond what the schema says about source.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core definition of the visualization before moving to inputs and outputs. Dense but each sentence carries information; no 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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool computes and what it produces (files plus a paper list with citation counts). It is missing only operational details such as runtime and output file location, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 100%, so the schema already documents ids, query, top, scope, source, corpus_file and max_results thoroughly. The description only adds 'Give ids or a query', which restates the schema's own 'Use this or query' guidance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 artifact (Garfield's historiograph) and defines it precisely: most-cited papers within the set on a time axis, with intra-set citations and the global main path highlighted. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling path_transmission/main-path tools by positioning itself as the complementary picture, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives input guidance ('Give ids or a query') and a soft positioning cue ('Complements the main path with the picture readers expect beside it'), but offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule versus citation_lineage, path_transmission, or bibliographic_coupling. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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