extract_keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals the analytical method (TF-IDF and co-occurrence) but omits important details: whether the tool is read-only, what happens with invalid paper IDs, output format, or any rate limits. This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently communicates purpose and methodology. While brief, it earns its place without extraneous words.

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?

The description covers what the tool does and its method, but lacks detail on output (e.g., returns keywords with scores?), constraints (only abstracts, not full text), and differentiation from related tools. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, more context would be beneficial for reliable agent usage.

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 50% (paper_ids has a description, max_keywords does not). The description adds context by linking the parameters to the method (TF-IDF and co-occurrence), which helps interpret max_keywords as a cap on extracted terms. However, it does not fully compensate for the missing parameter description.

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 action ('Extract key terms and concepts'), the resource ('paper abstracts'), and the method ('using TF-IDF and co-occurrence analysis'). This is specific and distinctive from siblings like 'analyze_literature' or 'generate_trend_chart'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'analyze_literature' or 'search_academic'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative advantages.

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