extract_peer_review_dataset

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

The description is consistent with the 'readOnlyHint: true' annotation, indicating a read operation. It adds value by explaining each parameter's role, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as file handling when 'save_locally' is false or potential size limits.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, followed by a concise parameter list. It is efficient given the number of parameters, though the parameter details could be slightly more compact.

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 7 parameters and an output schema, the description covers parameter meanings but omits details like prerequisites, synchronous behavior, or what happens when 'save_locally' is false. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the tool description compensates by explaining each parameter, e.g., 'output_format (csv, json, xlsx)' adds constraints absent from the schema. This provides meaningful context beyond types and titles.

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 'Export' and resource 'all peer review data,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like generating reports or listing assignments. It also mentions 'in various formats for analysis,' which further clarifies the tool's function.

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 use for data extraction but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_peer_review_report' or 'list_peer_reviews.' No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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