Get Bibtex

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that: it explains export scopes (items, collection, full library), the default of include_abstract=False to save tokens, and the specific field remappings for biblatex. While it doesn't detail the exact response format, the output schema covers that, and the added context is substantial.

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 well-structured with a focus on the core function, followed by a clear list of arguments. Every sentence adds value, and the biblatex remapping example is brief but illustrative. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

For an export tool with a simple schema, the description covers all essential context: what it does, when to use alternatives, parameter defaults, and limitations (max_chars). The presence of an output schema also reduces the need to explain return values, making this description complete for its purpose.

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 every parameter: item_keys, collection_id, include_abstract, biblatex (including exact field remappings), and max_chars (as a response size limit). This is far beyond the minimal information in the schema, which only provides titles and defaults.

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's function: 'Export BibTeX entries from your Zotero library.' It specifies the resource (Zotero library) and the operation (export), and distinguishes itself from the sibling save_bibtex by mentioning when to use the alternative. This makes the purpose unambiguous and well differentiated.

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 explicitly states when to use save_bibtex instead: 'Use save_bibtex when the export should be written to a local file.' It also notes that for larger full-library exports, save_bibtex should be used due to max_chars limitations. This provides clear guidance on tool selection and boundary conditions.

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