Export a Markdown bibliography

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that 'write' produces references.md next to the notebook, which is useful, but it does not state overwrite behavior, required permissions, or what the rendered output contains beyond annotated summaries and quotes.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by parameter-specific notes. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 a tool with four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits the 'title' parameter and any output/return details, leaving an agent incompletely equipped to invoke it correctly.

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 only 25% (just the 'write' parameter). The description compensates for 'annotated' (include summaries and quotes) and 'tag' (filter), but never explains the 'title' parameter. This is meaningful added value but incomplete for all four parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Render a Markdown bibliography.' This distinguishes it from the sibling export_bibtex by format, but the description never names or contrasts the alternative, leaving sibling differentiation implicit.

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 implies usage by noting optional filtering and writing, but it never says when to choose this tool over export_bibtex or any other sibling. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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