Fetch Bibtex By Doi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the content-negotiation retrieval path, the optional append side effect, and deduplication of keys/DOIs, but it omits authentication, rate limits, failure behavior, and whether existing files are created or only appended to.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted material. It is dense but appropriately sized, though splitting retrieval from optional write behavior would improve scanability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. Still, for a tool with an optional write side effect and no annotations, the description should clarify file-path behavior and error cases to be fully sufficient.

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 add parameter meaning. It explains that 'doi' is a DOI and that 'bib_file' is an optional project .bib target for appending, but it does not specify path format, what null means beyond being optional, or how duplicates are detected.

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: retrieve the official BibTeX entry for a DOI. It also mentions the content-negotiation mechanism and optional append behavior, making the operation clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as clean_bibtex_file or format_citation.

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?

Usage is implied by 'corresponding to a DOI' and 'optionally appends to the project .bib file.' However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives.

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