get_semantic_scholar_paper_references

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds value by mentioning that references include contexts, intents, and influence, offering insight into returned data. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving some gaps.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence provides clear information without fluff. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and key inclusions.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for a 4-parameter tool. It lacks usage guidance, parameter explanations, and explicit behavioral caveats. The existence of related sibling tools like get_semantic_scholar_citations_and_references makes the missing guidance more noticeable.

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 compensate. It only implicitly identifies paper_id as the target paper, but fails to explain limit, offset, and fields parameters. The output schema exists but does not help parameter understanding.

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 tool lists a paper's references and specifies included content (contexts, intents, influence). The verb 'List' and resource 'paper's references' are specific, and the name distinguishes it from related tools like citations.

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: when you need a paper's references, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like get_semantic_scholar_paper_citations or get_semantic_scholar_citations_and_references.

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