Get BibTeX

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly discloses a key behavioral trait: it will not fabricate metadata that is absent, and it returns canonical BibTeX. This is meaningful beyond the schema, though it does not address potential errors or exact output formatting.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the behavioral qualifier is compact yet informative.

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?

For a simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names the return value and a key behavioral guarantee. Minor gaps remain around identifier format and usage guidance, but the low complexity means these are not critical.

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 does not mention paper_id at all. The property name is self-explanatory at a basic level, but the description adds no information about what kind of identifier is expected, such as an internal ID, DOI, or arXiv ID.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') with a specific resource ('canonical BibTeX') and adds a meaningful qualifier about not fabricating absent metadata. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_paper or export_research_pack, which serve different purposes.

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 provides no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'Return canonical BibTeX,' with no explicit routing among the many sibling tools.

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