Metis · Librarian — Mine References

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it fetches references via CrossRef, checks against Zotero, and reports missing items. However, it does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling.

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 concise, with only four lines. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds value without 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers inputs and process adequately. A brief mention of output content could enhance completeness but is not required.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It describes 'dois' as a comma-separated list of DOIs and 'label' as an optional output file label, adding practical context beyond the schema's type and title.

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 verb (mine/fetches/checks/reports), resource (reference lists of specific articles), and specific actions (via CrossRef, against Zotero library). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_library or scan_literature by focusing on mining references from DOIs.

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 for fetching references from DOIs and checking against Zotero, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on when not to use it is given.

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