hf_papers_citation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format as raw text in a JSON object, which is a key behavior. It does not mention error handling or network dependencies, but for a non-destructive citation tool this is sufficient. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the response structure.

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 redundant information. It states the action, the resource, and the output format, all in a compact and readable manner.

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?

The tool has low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), and the description explains the return format, making it complete for straightforward invocation. It lacks edge-case details (e.g., invalid arxiv_id), but these are not expected for a simple citation tool. The description sufficiently covers purpose and output.

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 100%, with both parameters (arxiv_id and format) fully described, including an enum for format. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Generate a citation for a paper' with a specific verb and resource. It also specifies the output formats (BibTeX, APA, MLA), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search, info, and daily that serve different purposes.

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 tool's purpose is self-evident: use it when you need a citation for a paper. There are no explicit alternative references, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know when to invoke it versus the paper-related siblings. No exclusions or preconditions are needed for a simple citation generator.

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