cache_top_cited

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation without adding context. It does not specify the sorting order, what 'top' means, whether the cache must already exist, or any error handling. The description adds little beyond the function name.

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 concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful context; this under-specification is penalized in other dimensions but the structure itself is clean.

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's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate for the core operation. However, it fails to situate the tool among siblings, and does not explain when to use it over cache_citation_summary or cache_stats. The lack of usage context makes it incomplete for an agent deciding which tool to invoke.

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 input schema fully describes all parameters (n, name, year_max, year_min) with default values and descriptions, covering 100% of the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the schema serves as the primary source. Baseline 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 'Get top cited papers from cache' specifies the action (get), the object (top cited papers), and the resource (cache). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like cache_stats or cache_citation_summary by focusing on 'top cited' papers. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the specific phrasing is sufficient to identify the tool's purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, use cases, or alternative tools. The agent is given no context for selection, which is especially problematic given the many cache-related sibling tools.

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