generate_citation_network

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

Discloses key behaviors: directed graph, specific visual mapping, output format (PNG). With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well. Minor missing details (e.g., data source refresh) but sufficient for core transparency.

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?

Two sentences, no waste. Every sentence adds value: first states the main function, second details visual encoding and output. Well front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with 1 parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the output format and key visual attributes. It lacks constraints on the paper IDs format but is otherwise complete.

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 100% and the single parameter 'paper_ids' is described as 'Papers to include in the network'. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 clearly states the action 'visualize', the resource 'citation network as a directed graph', and provides specific encoding details (node size = citation count, color = year, top 10 labeled, outputs PNG). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_citations or generate_trend_chart.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_trend_chart or analyze_literature. The description implies usage through its name, but lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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