Drafts a paper from research materials using a specified template, then compiles and iterates to fix issues until clean.
Stage 2 instructions: draft the paper, then compile/inspect/fix until clean.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_retries | No | ||
| project_dir | Yes | ||
| template_id | Yes | ||
| research_folder | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions a compile/inspect/fix loop, implying file modifications and external commands, but it does not disclose what files are written, whether it overwrites content, or what side effects might occur. No annotations (e.g., destructiveHint) are present, so the description carries the full burden, which it fails to meet.
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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words or tangential information. It is well-structured and easy to parse, though its brevity contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions.
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 of drafting a paper, compiling it, and iterating on fixes, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not specify the drafting methodology, how to incorporate research_folder or template_id, what constitutes 'clean', or what the output schema contains. An agent would have no idea how to execute this tool effectively.
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 provides no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (project_dir, template_id, research_folder, max_retries). There is no information about how these parameters are used or what values are expected, leaving the agent completely in the dark.
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 states the action ('draft the paper') and a follow-up loop ('compile/inspect/fix until clean'), but lacks context about what paper, what template, or how it differs from sibling prompts like screening_prompt or humanization_prompt. The phrase 'Stage 2 instructions' is unexplained, making the purpose ambiguous.
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. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving the agent without direction on selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.