Recommend Papers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it reveals the default behavior (whole library), the role of SPECTER2 embeddings, that library papers are excluded, and the risk of HTTP 429 rate limiting without an API key. This goes well beyond a basic statement of function.

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 three focused sentences: purpose, configuration paths, and a caveat. It is efficiently front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses minimal words to convey multiple behaviors. No filler.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: default operation, parameter-driven alternatives, algorithmic basis, exclusion logic, and a practical rate-limit warning. For a recommendation tool with three optional parameters, this is 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning by framing 'tag' as selecting 'one reading-list bucket' and 'paper_ids' as 'ad hoc from specific papers', which clarifies their intent beyond the schema's property descriptions. It also mentions the default limit indirectly, reinforcing the schema's default.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Recommend' and a clear resource 'papers to read next, seeded by your library'. It explicitly identifies the arxiv-sanity 'more like these' feature, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_related which likely operate on a single paper. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explains when to use the default whole-library seeding versus passing 'tag' or 'paper_ids', providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the seeding-from-library vs. ad-hoc distinction effectively guides tool selection among siblings.

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