export_citations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool writes a file to 'outputs/exports/' and returns its path plus a preview. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or if it modifies the library, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a clear top-level purpose, a contextual sentence, and a bullet list of parameters. Every 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?

The description covers the output (file path and preview), mentions a sibling format option, and explains all parameters. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., library must exist) and idempotency details, which are minor gaps for an export tool.

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 input schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), but the description provides clear explanations for all 5 parameters, including defaults and the role of each filter. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 first sentence clearly states the verb ('Export') and the resource ('library references as a citation file (BibTeX)'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning that RIS format is available via 'mine_references', providing differentiation.

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 the tool (to produce a .bib file for Word, LaTeX, etc.) and notes that RIS is available via a sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or more detailed alternative conditions.

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