find_bridge_papers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it uses BFS over the citation/reference graph and leverages cached lists to minimize API calls. This informs the agent about computational cost and efficiency, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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: one stating the core purpose and one adding algorithmic context. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. The primary functionality is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse.

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 the annotations, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It explains the approach (BFS) and the efficiency optimization (caching), which are valuable for understanding behavior. It lacks edge-case details like 'what if no path exists', but the output schema likely covers return semantics, so this is 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 all four parameters documented including enums and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter-level explanation, so it stays at the baseline of 3. It does not contradict the schema and correctly leaves parameter details to the structured definition.

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 opens with 'Find the shortest citation path between two papers', which is a specific verb+resource pair that clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_citations or get_references. It explicitly names the two-paper pathfinding scope, leaving no ambiguity about its primary function.

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 context is clear: use this when you need the shortest path between two papers. The mention of BFS and cached lists implies efficiency, suggesting it is preferable to manual graph traversal via sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses a point for explicit exclusions.

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