get_bibtex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool appends to a local file, skips duplicates (status=duplicate), leaves the file unchanged on failure, and enumerates possible statuses (added, duplicate, not_found, error, invalid_path). This is strong transparency for a write action. However, it does not mention whether the target file is created if missing, which is a minor behavioral gap. Hence a 4.

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 exceptionally concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains duplicate handling and failure behavior, and the third lists status values. Every sentence contributes essential information without fluff. The most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the essential functionality and edge cases: fetching, appending, duplicate detection, failure behavior, and status outcomes. Since the tool has an output schema (confirmed by context signals), the status values are likely defined there as well. The only notable omission is the behavior when the target file does not exist (whether it is created), but for a simple two-parameter tool, the description is quite complete. Thus a 4.

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 100%: both parameters (doi and bib_path) have clear descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'DOI string or https://doi.org/... URL' and 'Workspace-relative bibliography path (default references.bib)'). The description adds minimal extra parameter-specific meaning, only reinforcing that the path is local and that the default is used. Since the schema already fully documents the parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose with a specific verb: 'Fetch the official Crossref/DOI BibTeX entry and append it locally.' It names the resource (Crossref/DOI BibTeX) and the action (append locally), making it distinct from sibling tools like extract_sections or search_papers, which handle unrelated tasks. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 clearly defines what the tool does (fetch and append BibTeX) and its context (workspace-relative path, default references.bib). It does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, but since the sibling tools are clearly for different functions (section extraction, paper search, download/parse), the use case is self-evident. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or alternative comparison, but the absence of overlapping functionality makes a 4 appropriate.

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