summarize_papers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions searching and summarizing but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data sources, or potential errors. The description is functional but lacks operational context needed for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured: a brief purpose statement followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core function.

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 annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does well on parameters but lacks behavioral context. It explains what the tool does and its inputs thoroughly but doesn't cover output format details (beyond 'Markdown format text'), error handling, or operational constraints. Adequate but with clear gaps for a search/summarize tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed parameter semantics: 'topic' as research topic, 'count' with default 5, 'sort_by' with enum values and defaults, and optional year filters. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, fully documenting all parameters.

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's purpose as '搜索并总结特定主题的论文' (search and summarize papers on a specific topic), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'paper_detail' (detailed view) and 'scholar_search' (search only), though not explicitly. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 like 'adaptive_search' or 'scholar_search'. The description implies usage for summarizing papers but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. It's a basic functional statement without strategic guidance.

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