build_citation_network

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'build a multi-hop citation network'. It does not explain whether this modifies state, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns a visual vs. data structure. The behavior is underspecified.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence without fluff. However, its brevity sacrifices necessary detail for a multi-hop network tool, making it less effective despite conciseness.

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 complexity of a multi-hop citation network, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the output format, behavior for large networks, or how it differs from similar tools. More context is needed for completeness.

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 well-described parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter explanation.

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 specifies the verb 'build' and the resource 'multi-hop citation network around a paper showing references and citations'. It distinguishes this tool from related siblings like 'get_citation_network', 'find_citing_papers', and 'find_referenced_papers' by emphasizing multi-hop and network construction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the simpler 'get_citation_network' or single-direction search tools. The description lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information.

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