zotero_get_annotations

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: the risk of returning thousands of records without item_key, the PDF extraction fallback, output format differences, backend selection (local Better BibTeX vs web API), and an example. This adds valuable transparency beyond the basic schema.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-organized: it opens with the core purpose, then explains each parameter, adds a backend note, and ends with an example. No sentence is wasted, though it could be tightened without losing value.

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 has an output schema (per context signals), the description does not need to explain return structures. It sufficiently covers parameter behavior, fallback scenarios, and usage best practices, making it complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Although the schema covers all parameters, the description significantly enriches them: item_key accepts both parent and attachment keys, use_pdf_extraction is explained as a fallback for annotations not stored in the API, limit is caps the result, and format distinguishes human-readable vs normalized JSON. This goes well beyond the bare schema 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 states the tool retrieves annotations (highlights and attached notes) for a specific item or the active library. It uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('annotations'), and its scope distinguishes it from siblings like zotero_get_notes or zotero_synthesize_annotations.

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 provides clear usage guidance by emphasizing that item_key should always be passed when possible to avoid retrieving all annotations, and it explains when to use use_pdf_extraction. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or situations where they should be preferred, though the usage context is strong.

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