create_idea

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose important behavioral aspects such as side effects, permissions, or what happens on success/failure. The only behavioral hint is the rejection when no source arXiv paper is cited, which is a constraint but not a comprehensive disclosure.

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 concise at two sentences with no fluff. The key constraint is front-loaded in the second sentence. However, for a tool with 11 parameters, it may be too brief, but conciseness itself is well achieved.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a sibling tool chain, the description is severely lacking. It covers only one constraint and omits essential details about return values, side effects, prerequisites, and parameter roles, making it incomplete for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description only adds meaning to one parameter (source_arxiv_ids) by enforcing a citation rule. The remaining 10 parameters (title, hypothesis, metric, etc.) receive no explanation, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names alone, which is insufficient.

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-resource pair 'Create a research idea', which distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_ideas' and 'create_experiment_from_idea'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other create tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_experiment_from_idea'. The constraint about citing papers is stated but does not provide context for when the tool is appropriate.

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