get_related_works_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the underlying method (bibliographic coupling and co-citation), which adds transparency. However, it does not discuss side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value without extraneous words. It is efficiently structured for quick parsing.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential input details (paper ID format, limit) and method. It is mostly complete, though it could explicitly describe the limit parameter's effect.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that paper_id accepts DOI or OpenAlex ID, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the limit parameter beyond its existence (default 10), leaving room for improvement.

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 finds related/similar papers for a given paper, specifying accepted identifiers (DOI or OpenAlex ID) and the method used (bibliographic coupling and co-citation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_papers or get_paper_details.

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 the tool is for finding related works based on a specific paper, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor provides exclusions or prerequisites. It offers basic usage context but lacks guidance on when not to use it.

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