Get Paper Bibtex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but for a single-parameter read operation the burden is light. It names the return artifact (BibTeX citation), which is useful. It does not say how a missing or invalid paper_id is handled or whether the result is cached/formatted, so it stays at a minimum-viable level.

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?

Two short lines with the purpose front-loaded and the parameter listed compactly. There is no padding, though the parameter line is so terse it borders on contributing nothing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and a one-parameter read tool is inherently simple. Still, given 13 siblings, the absence of any routing guidance or parameter sourcing leaves the definition adequate but with a clear gap.

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%, and the description only offers 'paper_id: The paper ID', which merely restates the parameter name. No format, example, or source for the ID (e.g., from search_papers results) is given, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the BibTeX citation for a paper.' An agent immediately knows the operation and artifact. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_paper_citation, which likely sounds similar to a caller.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. With siblings named get_paper_citation and get_paper_details in the list, the description should say when BibTeX is the right format to request versus those alternatives, but it offers nothing.

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