cache_citation_summary

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description transparently discloses the specific outputs (mean, median, max, counts of highly cited papers), which is the core behavioral context. It does not mention side effects, but this is a read operation by nature, and the description covers the essential behavior.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no filler. Every word adds value.

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?

With one parameter, an output schema, and a clear description of the computed statistics, the tool is sufficiently specified. The description doesn't explain edge cases, but the presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make it complete enough.

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?

The schema fully documents the single 'name' parameter as 'Cache name' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'citation statistics for cached papers'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like cache_top_cited (which lists papers) and cache_stats (which likely provides general cache stats).

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 implies usage when aggregated citation statistics are needed, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like cache_top_cited or cache_stats. The context is clear from the name and description, but no when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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