zotero_library_coverage

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses behavior: skips attachments/notes/annotations as targets, counts coverage if item or child is PDF, reports capped list (first 50 missing). No contradictions detected. Transparency is high.

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?

Description is moderately long but well-structured: purpose first, then parameters, then behavior, then output example. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but efficient overall.

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 audit function and presence of an output schema (likely), the description is complete: explains scanning scope, counting logic, output fields (total, covered, missing, percentage, missing list with title/year/key/DOI). No missing critical information.

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 description compensates fully: explains collection_key as 'optional 8-char key to scope' and limit as 'max top-level items to scan (default 200)'. Adds meaning beyond schema, making parameters self-explanatory.

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 it audits PDF coverage across Zotero library/collection, identifying items with/without PDF attachments. It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing zotero_add_by_doi for fetching missing papers, making the purpose specific and actionable.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'find papers you can still fetch full text for' and suggests alternative zotero_add_by_doi for the missing list. Provides context on scoping (collection_key, limit) and output usage, fulfilling when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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