Create a starter references.bib file for an academic paper, with optional name and force overwrite. Use it to initialize the bibliography before adding citations.
Create a starter references.bib in a paper.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| force | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 does not explain whether an existing references.bib is overwritten, what the 'force' parameter does, what 'starter' content is generated, or what prerequisites exist.
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 wasted words. However, its extreme brevity leaves important invocation details unstated, though that is better assessed under contextual completeness.
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 file-creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, this description is far too sparse. An agent cannot confidently determine overwrite behavior, required context, or parameter meaning from the definition alone.
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 says nothing about the two parameters. It does not clarify what 'name' refers to (paper name, file name, or identifier) or what 'force' controls.
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: 'Create a starter references.bib'. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like paper_bib_check or paper_init.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as paper_init, paper_templates, or paper_bib_check. The description gives only a bare statement of purpose with no context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.