get_references

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the reference list in the requested format along with total count and title, but does not mention any side effects, rates, or permissions. It is transparent about the output but not about other behavioral traits.

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 concise (5 lines) and well-structured with a clear 'Args:' section. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without excess.

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 simple tool (2 params, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description adequately covers the inputs and outputs. It could be more complete by mentioning that the inspire_id must be valid, but overall it provides sufficient context for correct usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining that inspire_id is a numeric InspireHEP record ID and that format accepts specific values ('bibtex', 'json', 'latex-us', 'latex-eu'). This adds essential meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool generates a formatted reference list for a paper, specifying the resource (paper via inspire_id) and the action. It distinguishes from siblings like get_bibtex by indicating it returns additional fields (total reference count, paper title) and supports multiple formats.

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 explains what the tool does and its arguments, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., get_bibtex). It implies it is for a more comprehensive reference list, but lacks direct guidance on when not to use it.

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