zotero_get_citation_key

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it uses the running Better BibTeX plugin first, then falls back to the stored citationKey/Extra field. This discloses the resolution order and dependency on the plugin, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes the method without any fluff. Every sentence contributes, and it is appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter tool.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety semantics, the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose and fallback behavior. It could mention what happens when no citation key is found, but the lack of that detail is not a major gap because output schema likely covers return structure.

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?

The input schema has 0% coverage (the 'key' parameter has no description). The description compensates by clarifying that the parameter is 'one exact Zotero item key', providing meaning that the schema lacks. It does not specify format details, but enough meaning is added to make the parameter understandable.

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 ('Resolve') and resource ('Better BibTeX citation key for one exact Zotero item key'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like zotero_search or zotero_item by focusing on resolving a citation key from a single exact item key, and even hints at the underlying method.

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 for a single exact Zotero item key, giving clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is well-defined, and a user would understand when to invoke this tool vs. a broader search tool. No explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, but not misleading.

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