Expand Related Papers

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only hints at behavior with 'without exposing intermediate tables'. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires external API calls, or any potential side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 sentence that conveys the core workflow efficiently. It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes a behavioral note. No superfluous words. However, it could benefit from slightly more structure to break down key steps.

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 (5 parameters, nested screening object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not specify return values, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., need for an API key). The tool serves a multi-step process (fetch, screen, rank), but the description glosses over operational details.

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%; the description does not explain any parameter in detail. It mentions a 'seed paper' and 'screening' implicitly, but does not describe the screeningCriteria structure, the limit parameter, or the API key purpose. With 5 parameters including a nested object, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 verb (expand) and resource (related papers from a seed paper using Semantic Scholar). It adds the screening and ranking step, which distinguishes it from a simple recommendation lookup. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like discover_papers or auto_literature_screen, which might overlap.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or exclusion criteria. The agent is left to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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