resolve_seed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one useful trait (non-persistent, 'without saving'), but with five optional identifier parameters it never explains precedence/conflict resolution between them, error behavior, or whether an external API is queried.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The purpose and the routing hint each earn their place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a five-optional-parameter resolver with no annotations the description omits the essential semantics of the inputs and their precedence, leaving the agent unable to call it confidently.

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 0% and the description names none of the five parameters (doi, s2_id, arxiv_id, paper_id, title_query). The critical question of which identifier takes precedence, or whether one is required, is left entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('look up seed candidate metadata') and explicitly scopes it as non-persistent ('without saving'). It differentiates from the sibling add_seed, though it doesn't distinguish itself from other lookup tools like get_paper or similar_to.

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?

Gives clear context and a named alternative: 'Use before add_seed if unsure.' This is an explicit when-to-use with a routing recommendation, though it stops short of stating when NOT to call it.

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