export_bibliography

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether the export is read-only, what the response looks like, whether it downloads a file, or what happens when neither parameter is supplied. For an export tool this is a notable gap.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler and the action front-loaded. It is terse but not tautological; it conveys the verb, object, and output format efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple (2 optional params, no nested objects, no output schema), but the description doesn't explain the interaction between tag and collection_name or the behavior with no parameters provided. Adequate for basic selection, with clear gaps for invocation correctness.

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% — both tag and collection_name have inline descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the schema does the heavy lifting; 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 and resource ('Export papers') and names the output format (BibTeX bibliography), which makes the tool's function clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like build_reading_list or search_personal_library beyond the format mention, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as zotero_search, zotero_get_metadata, or build_reading_list. The description implies use for bibliography export but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selection.

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