spraay_research_papers_citations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' is redundant. It adds cost information ($0.002 per call) and a usage hint ('Pass the listed fields directly as typed arguments'), but does not disclose behavior when both id and doi are provided, or error handling for missing parameters. The openWorldHint annotation suggests incomplete documentation, and the description does not fill that gap.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose concisely, and the second adds cost, safety, and usage hint. It is front-loaded with the key functionality and contains no fluff.

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 (not shown), so return values are documented separately. However, the description omits prerequisites (e.g., need for a paper identifier), potential error conditions, or behavior when both parameters are provided. Given the tool's simplicity, it is acceptable but not fully complete.

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% by parameter count, but the individual descriptions ('id parameter', 'doi parameter') are uninformative. The main description adds that the tool is about citations, implying id/doi identify a paper, but does not explain the difference between id and doi or specify that one must be provided. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, and no additional value is provided beyond that.

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 'Citation graph - cited-by count and references' clearly states a specific verb+resource: it provides citation graph data (incoming cited-by count and outgoing references). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spraay_research_papers_by_doi or spraay_research_papers_search which focus on paper metadata or search.

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 mentions cost and read-only nature, which is helpful but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like spraay_research_papers_by_doi or spraay_research_papers_search. It lacks 'when not to use' or specific context about prerequisites or fallback options.

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