import_references

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false but say nothing about scope, so the description carries real added value: it clarifies this imports records only (attachments excluded) and that it does not crawl paywalled databases, and that inputs are confined to an authorized directory. It still omits behavior on duplicates or existing-library conflicts, which matters for an import mutation, keeping it below a 5.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the action and formats, then appends the two key constraints. Every clause earns its place with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no extra structured guidance, the description covers formats, the attachment exclusion, the source-directory restriction, and the no-crawling limit. It nonetheless omits duplicate handling, expected outcome (what gets created), and the role of project_id, so an agent could still invoke it without knowing the full behavioral surface.

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% for both required parameters, so the description must do all the work – and it largely does not. It constrains 'path' to an authorized directory, which is useful, but says nothing about the format/meaning of project_id or what path forms are accepted (file vs. directory, relative vs. absolute). This leaves the parameters materially under-specified.

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 (导入/import) and resource (题录/bibliographic records) and enumerates the accepted formats (BibTeX, RIS, CSL-JSON), which distinguishes it from sibling importers such as import_document or parse_document. It also implies a distinct scope by noting attachments must be imported separately. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

It gives one real prerequisite – the path must be inside an authorized directory – and one routing hint ('附件须另行导入'), which points the agent toward a separate attachment-import flow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance relative to siblings like import_document, nor any mention of preconditions like project_id being an existing project. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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