parse_references

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states that the tool extracts DOIs/queries, but it omits key details such as how it handles invalid input, what happens if no DOIs are found, whether it performs validation, or any rate limits. The description is too minimal for full transparency.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function. It contains no unnecessary words or redundancy, making it efficient and 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the input type and the extraction goal, but it lacks mention of the output format, success indicators, or error behavior. Additional context would be beneficial for confident usage.

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 100% with the parameter description 'Bibliography text (bib/ris/plain)'. The tool description adds value by explaining that the text is parsed to extract DOIs/queries, providing context for the parameter's purpose. However, it could further clarify expected input format details or constraints.

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 extracts DOIs/queries from specific bibliography formats (BibTeX, RIS, plain text). The verb 'Extract' and resource 'DOIs/queries' provide specific scope, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_mirrors, download_paper, etc., which handle different tasks.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The user/agent must infer its applicability from the sole purpose statement.

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