mine_references

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool fetches external data (CrossRef), compares to local Zotero library, and reports missing references. It implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is adequately transparent.

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 one-line summary, a process sentence, and bullet-pointed arguments. Every sentence adds value, though the process sentence could be slightly more structured. No redundant information.

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 input parameters and core behavior. However, it does not mention prerequisites like Zotero library connectivity or external API rate limits, which would enhance completeness.

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% (no parameter descriptions), but the description adds clear explanations for both parameters: dois as a comma-separated list of DOIs, and label as an optional output file label. This compensates well for the schema gap.

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 reference lists' and specifies the resource 'specific articles'. It explains the process: fetch references for DOIs via CrossRef, check against Zotero library, report missing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_literature which searches broadly.

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 mining references from specific DOIs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_literature or scan_literature. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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