add_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 only states that the tool appends a section from stored sources, with no mention of whether an existing bibliography is replaced, the output format, required permissions, or 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. The primary action and object are immediately clear.

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 tool with five parameters, no annotations, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the required path, how the stored sources are used, or how mode/out affect the operation.

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 0%, and the description adds no explanation for path, mode, style, heading, or out. An agent cannot infer the meaning or role of these parameters from the description, despite the self-explanatory names and defaults.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Append', and a clear resource, 'References / Works Cited section', while noting it is 'built from the stored sources.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_citation and add_footnote.

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 implies when to use the tool: after sources have been stored, to append a bibliography section. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over import_references or add_citation, nor does it provide exclusions.

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