export_references

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses caching behavior (cache_ttl_hours), optional file saving (output_path), and return formats (string or saved file). However, it does not mention error handling for invalid identifiers.

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 uses a clear bullet-point list for Args and Returns, with no redundant or unnecessary sentences. Every line adds value, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 parameters, return value, and caching, but could include error conditions or behavior when identifiers are missing. Additionally, output schema exists but is not detailed in description.

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%, but the description explains each parameter with examples (e.g., identifiers list) and defaults. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema field names, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Export references for multiple papers in the specified format,' providing a specific verb ('export') and resource ('references'). It distinguishes from sibling tools, which are primarily download, search, or read operations.

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 for getting formatted references from multiple papers, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., if only one paper is needed). No 'when not to use' or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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