Get Paper Reference List

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns JSON with specific fields (paper_title, total_references, returned, references) and an error object on failure. This provides behavioral context beyond annotations, such as output structure and error handling.

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 concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and structured with clear sections for return fields, arguments, and return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter), the presence of annotations and output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, output structure, input requirements, and error handling, leaving no apparent gaps.

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 a detailed description of 'paper_title'. The description only repeats 'paper_title: str' without adding new meaning, so baseline score 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 'Return the bibliography of a paper — the papers it cites (backward citations)', which is a specific verb+resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'paper_get_citations' (forward citations) by specifying 'backward citations'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The term 'backward citations' implies use for getting cited papers, but no exclusion or alternative mention. This is implied usage, fitting the score 3.

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