get_author_collaborators

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, if authentication is needed, or how invalid input is handled. Only the basic function is described, missing critical context for safe invocation.

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 sentences, concise and front-loaded with purpose. However, it could be slightly more efficient by combining the two sentences without losing clarity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not specify the output structure (e.g., what fields are returned for collaborators and statistics). Adequate for a simple tool but lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand what to expect.

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 100% for both parameters, so baseline is 3. Description adds no additional meaning beyond 'frequent collaborators' and does not clarify parameter formats (e.g., author_id format, default value for min_collaborations).

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Analyze', the resource 'author's co-authorship network', and the outcome 'returns frequent collaborators and collaboration statistics'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_author_profile' or 'get_author_works' by focusing specifically on co-authorship network analysis.

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 for analyzing co-authorship but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_author_works'. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites (e.g., valid author_id).

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