find_related_papers

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

No annotations exist. The description does not mention read-only nature, side effects, or any behavioral details. It only states the basic function without clarifying if the tool is safe or what 'semantically related' means.

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 extremely concise with two sentences plus args. No redundant information; front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers the basic input semantics. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral context, making it merely adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the doi is the source paper's DOI and limit is max number of related papers (1-10). The default of 5 is also noted.

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 'Find semantically related papers based on a given DOI.' It specifies the action (find) and the input (DOI), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_literature which uses keywords.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention context like when to prefer find_related_papers over search_literature or when a DOI is available.

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