bib:list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly signals a read-only listing operation filtered by CSL type, which is valuable, but it does not reconcile the claim 'all' with the required limit parameter or disclose pagination/ordering behavior.

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 that states the action and resource immediately. The examples are placed at the end and there is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 lack of annotations, lack of output schema, and the large sibling toolset, the description is incomplete. It does not explain output format, result truncation, or how to choose between bib:list and the many related bib: tools, leaving the agent to infer too much.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters, so this is a baseline 3. The description adds only an extra CSL type example ('chapter') and does not add meaningful semantics for file or limit beyond the schema coverage.

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 clear verb ('List'), names the resource ('bibliography entries'), and specifies the filtering dimension ('CSL type') with helpful examples. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like bib:search or bib:get, but the core function is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose bib:list over siblings such as bib:search, bib:get, or bib:stats, and no exclusion criteria. The phrase 'given CSL type' implies a filtering use case, but an agent navigating 13 related tools needs more explicit routing.

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