workspace_list_external_reference_resolutions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List recorded...' conveys that this is a read-style operation returning stored data, and 'selection provenance' hints at the output contents. However, it does not disclose behavior such as whether the result is scoped by paper_id, how results are ordered, or whether pagination applies.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every phrase ('recorded', 'external reference resolutions', 'selection provenance') adds meaning, making it an appropriately concise definition.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits parameter semantics, any filtering behavior, and the shape/scope of the returned provenance. An agent would struggle to know whether and how to pass paper_id to get the intended result.

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 never mentions the single parameter, paper_id. An agent cannot tell whether paper_id filters the listed resolutions, scopes the provenance, or is simply ignored. The description does nothing to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('recorded external reference resolutions') and adds 'selection provenance', which makes the tool's scope clearer than just 'list resolutions.' It distinguishes reasonably from related siblings like workspace_list_external_reference_searches, but it does not explicitly call out how it differs from them.

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 such as workspace_resolve_external_reference, workspace_list_external_reference_searches, or workspace_resolve_external_reference_candidate. There is no when-to-use context, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of the optional paper_id relationship.

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