get_references

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole behavioral signal. It adds useful facts: limit range (1-1000), default 10, offset pagination, and accepted ID forms. It does not mention auth, rate limits, side effects, or empty-result behavior, though this is a read-only fetch operation.

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 compact: one purpose sentence followed by a three-line argument list. Every sentence carries useful information, with no filler or repetition.

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 straightforward retrieval tool with three parameters, an output schema, and documented argument constraints, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is a lack of explicit comparison to get_citations, but the purpose sentence already conveys the distinction.

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%, so the description compensates by explaining that paper_id accepts DOI/arXiv identifiers, providing limit's range and default, and defining offset as a pagination offset. This adds real meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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: 'Get papers referenced by a given paper.' The term 'referenced' clearly indicates outgoing citations, which distinguishes it from the sibling get_citations, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 provided about when to use this tool instead of siblings such as get_citations, get_paper, or search_papers. There are no stated conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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