get_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 simple read retrieval the verb 'Get' plus the output schema adequately convey the operation. It does not state auth needs, error behavior, or whether the citation is returned as raw text, so it stops short of rich disclosure.

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 with no filler; every word earns its place.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described, and the tool is simple with one parameter. However, the description omits the expected ID format and any read-only/auth context, leaving minor gaps for a tool of this simplicity.

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% and there is one required parameter (paper_id), but the description's phrase 'a specific arXiv paper' lightly signals that the parameter identifies an arXiv paper. It adds marginal meaning beyond the schema and does not specify the ID format.

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 specific arXiv paper'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_paper_fulltext or search_arxiv, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer from the name that this is the citation-format retrieval option, which is a real gap.

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