export_citations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool writes a file to 'outputs/exports/' and returns its path plus a preview, which is helpful but could be more detailed about overwriting behavior or permission requirements.

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 paragraph followed by a bullet-like list of arguments. It is reasonably efficient but could be slightly more concise by integrating the list more tightly. The information is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 the existence of an output schema (not shown but noted), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and output behavior. However, it omits potential prerequisites (e.g., library must contain references) or limitations, which would make it more complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains all five parameters (query, tag, collection, fmt, limit) with their purpose, default values, and notes (e.g., 'empty = all' for query, 'substring match on the tags field'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Export library references as a citation file (BibTeX)', specifying the verb 'export' and resource 'library references'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like `mine_references` (which offers RIS) and `import_bibtex_library` by focusing on export.

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 explains when to use this tool: for 'cite-while-you-write' to Word, LaTeX/Overleaf, or reference managers. It explicitly mentions an alternative ('RIS available via mine_references'), guiding the agent to choose correctly.

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