get_work_references

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

The annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior; the description adds specific transparency by disclosing the hard cap of 50 for limit and that it reads the `reference` field, providing details beyond the generic annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence provides useful information 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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers the core functionality, input (DOI), and a key constraint (limit cap). It does not detail the return structure, but the description's phrase 'reference list' and 'works it cites' gives a reasonable expectation. Given no output schema, this is adequate.

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?

With zero schema descriptions for parameters, the description partially compensates by explaining that doi identifies the work and that limit is capped at 50. However, the `raw` parameter is not explained, leaving a semantic gap.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('reference list of a work'), and further clarifies it's the works it cites, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_work or get_work_quality.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to retrieve references/citations of a work by DOI), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions compared to other work-related tools.

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