summarize_paper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Fetch', implying a read operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, error handling, or response size. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 (two lines) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence is necessary: the first line states the action, the second documents the argument. No waste.

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 (one parameter, fetching abstract/metadata) and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that the output is structured for LLM summarization, but the output schema handles that. Slightly incomplete for a novice agent.

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 by explicitly stating 'doi: The DOI of the paper to summarize.' This clarifies the single parameter beyond its name, though additional details (e.g., format, validation) are missing. Baseline for 0% coverage is low, and the description compensates adequately.

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 it fetches a paper's abstract and metadata for summarization, using specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'paper's abstract and metadata'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_literature (searching) and find_related_papers (finding related), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 usage when a DOI is available for summarization. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool guidance. Given clear context and no misleading statements, it earns a 4.

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