kci_references

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so well by warning that an empty list may mean missing publisher data rather than zero citations. The 'floor, never a count' caveat is a meaningful behavioral trait beyond what the schema or output schema would reveal.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The caveat about data quality is essential and presented without unnecessary elaboration.

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 one-parameter lookup with an output schema available, the description adequately covers what the tool does and the critical data-quality caveat. It is slightly incomplete only in not addressing tool-selection context relative to its siblings.

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?

The schema has only one required parameter, article_id, and zero percent schema description coverage. The description implies that this parameter identifies a single KCI article, but it does not add explicit details about the expected format, provenance, or examples beyond what the parameter name and title convey.

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 identifies the resource as the works cited by one KCI article, and the parenthetical 'referenceSearch' reinforces the operation. It is distinguishable from sibling tools such as kci_search and kci_article, though it lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'retrieve' or 'list.'

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 important interpretive guidance about KCI's reference data being uneven and empty lists being ambiguous, which helps an agent use results correctly. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings or provide exclusion criteria.

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