scite_check_retractions

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

Since no annotations exist, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that items without DOIs are skipped silently, the tool returns only flagged items (with a count of clean items omitted), and that network errors yield a specific error message. It also clarifies that no Scite account is needed and the scope is the active library. These details give the agent a comprehensive understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then details scoping modes, parameter semantics, error handling, and usage tips. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Examples are included at the end. Despite its length, it is concise and front-loaded with essential information.

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 tool's complexity (three modes, error handling, skipping behavior) and the existence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description covers all necessary aspects: scoping, defaults, DOIs, error states, and relation to siblings. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 has zero description coverage, but the description extensively explains each parameter: collection (name or 8-char key, resolved via zotero_search_collections), tag (exact, case-sensitive), and limit (default 50, max 500). It also explains the mutually exclusive scoping rule and provides examples. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 defines the tool's purpose: scanning Zotero items for editorial notices (retractions, corrections, etc.) via Scite. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool scite_enrich_item by noting that for single-paper checks, the latter is preferred. The verb 'scan' and resource 'Zotero items for editorial notices on Scite' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'vet a reading list before citing.' It explains three mutually exclusive scoping modes (collection, tag, recent) and provides guidance on how to choose among them. It also tells when not to use it: 'For a single-paper check prefer scite_enrich_item.' This level of detail provides clear usage context and alternatives.

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