get_references

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'one page' which hints at pagination, but does not explain default page size, how offset/limit interact, whether results are sorted, or what happens if the paper has no references. It also does not disclose any rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects (though this is likely a read 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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource. However, it is so brief that it misses important parameter and usage details, so it is concise but under-specified.

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 has 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination parameters, field selection, or how the output is structured. The output schema may help, but the description should at least clarify the meaning of limit, offset, and fields to allow correct invocation.

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 must compensate for the four parameters. It only clarifies that paper_id identifies the paper whose references are returned. It does not explain limit, offset, or fields. The term 'one page' implies limit/offset but does not define their semantics or defaults. The fields parameter is completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess what field names are valid.

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 ('Get') and resource ('references cited by the requested paper'), and the phrase 'one page' signals pagination. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like get_citations, which likely returns citing papers rather than cited references. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from get_paper or get_papers, which could also return reference lists.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_citations or search_papers. It does not mention pagination behavior, how to request more pages, or any context about typical use cases. The only implied usage is that it returns references for a paper, but no exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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