generate_bibliography

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool writes to the outputPath, returns a string, or both; nor does it disclose default style behavior, error conditions, or side effects. 'Generate' implies a non-destructive operation, but important output behavior is omitted.

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, focused sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the primary verb and resource, but it is slightly too terse to fully compensate for the missing behavioral details.

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 that the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and an optional outputPath that hints at file-writing behavior, the description should clarify what the tool returns or saves. It does not, leaving an agent uncertain about the tool's observable effects.

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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description adds only contextual meaning to 'references' by confirming they are parsed references; style and outputPath semantics are fully covered by the schema.

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 clear action ('Generate'), a concrete resource ('a formatted bibliography'), and an input source ('from parsed references'). It is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling parse_references, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with 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?

The phrase 'from parsed references' implies this tool is intended to be used after parse_references has produced reference data, which provides clear upsteam context. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when format_citation would be a better choice.

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