get_paper_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without describing pagination defaults, sorting, or what constitutes 'referenced' (e.g., whether it includes self-citations or only works cited). No additional behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core action, making it 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 tool is relatively simple and includes an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description leaves gaps: it does not explain when to use this over get_paper_citations, nor does it elaborate on parameter behavior. It is adequate for a basic list operation but lacks essential usage context.

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 provides no explanation of parameters beyond the schema's names/types. It does not clarify the meaning or semantics of 'limit', 'offset', 'fields', or even 'paper_id'. The description fails to compensate 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 the tool lists papers referenced by a given paper, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('papers referenced by a given paper'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_paper_citations, which would list citing papers.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_paper_citations or search_papers. There is no mention of any exclusions or specific scenarios for use.

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