get_related_works

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the basis for relatedness (topics, citations, references) but does not detail output format, error handling, or default behavior (e.g., per_page default=10). This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, no wasted words. The first sentence defines the action, the second provides utility. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 explains what and why, but lacks explicit mention of output format (list of works) and default/max per_page behavior. Given tool simplicity and schema coverage, it is nearly complete but has a minor gap.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both id and per_page. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool finds works related to a given work based on shared topics, citations, and references. It uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('works related to a given work'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_work, get_work_citations, or search_works.

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 advises it is 'useful for discovering similar papers in a research area,' providing clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases or compare to alternatives like search_works or get_citation_network, leaving room for slightly better guidance.

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