zotero_bibliography

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the dependency on zotero.org's citation processor when a web API key is configured, and the fallback to a plain author–date rendering from local metadata. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it could also mention rate limits or network failure 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the fallback behavior is stated efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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 formatting tool with 5 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral nuance (web vs local fallback) and the output modes. It could be more complete by noting that the output is a formatted string or list, but the schema and description together are sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds context about the 'mode' and 'style' parameters by explaining the output types and example styles, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Format references') and resource ('as a bibliography or in-text citations in any CSL style'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like zotero_search or zotero_get_item. It also names example styles, making the purpose concrete and immediately recognizable.

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 explains the two modes ('bib' vs 'citation') and the style options, and it clarifies the fallback behavior when no web API key is configured. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for citation/bibliography formatting tasks.

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