get_references_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. While 'Get' implies read-only behavior, the description omits critical details like pagination behavior, 'all' result limits, error handling for invalid scroll_ids, or any permission requirements.

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?

Single efficient sentence with zero waste. Information is front-loaded with the action 'Get', and the parenthetical clarification adds distinguishing value without verbosity.

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 existence of an output schema, the description appropriately omits return value details. However, with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the failure to explicitly document the single required parameter and behavioral constraints leaves notable gaps.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. While 'a given scroll' loosely maps to the scroll_id parameter, the description fails to explicitly document the parameter name, expected format, or provide semantic context beyond the implicit reference.

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 'Get' with clear resource 'scrolls' and scope 'backward references'. The parenthetical '(its bibliography — backward references)' effectively distinguishes this from sibling tool get_citations_tool (likely forward references) using domain terminology.

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 usage distinction through 'backward references' terminology, suggesting it retrieves cited works rather than citing works. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_citations_tool or other alternatives.

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