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 key behaviors: fetching via CrossRef, checking against Zotero, and reporting missing references. It does not state side effects or whether it modifies the library, but the read-only intent is reasonably clear.

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: a one-line summary followed by a brief behavioral paragraph and a structured 'Args:' section. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity and the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the main functionality and parameters. It could mention the output format or requirements, but overall it is complete enough.

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 schema coverage is 0%, but the description includes an 'Args:' block that explains both parameters: dois is a comma-separated list of DOIs, and label is an optional output file label. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Mine reference lists of specific articles.' It clearly states the tool fetches references for DOIs via CrossRef, checks against Zotero library, and reports missing ones, distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_literature' which search for articles rather than mine reference lists.

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 what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites or when not to use it. Implied usage from the behavior, but no explicit guidance.

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