format_references_apa7

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses formatting behaviors (author-count, DOI, italics, ordering) but does not explicitly state if the tool is read-only or if it modifies data. It is likely a read/transform operation, but could be clearer.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with main purpose. It efficiently conveys the key capability, but could be slightly more structured to separate input specification from output details.

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 formatting tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors (author-count, DOI, italics, ordering). It does not mention prerequisites or error conditions, but is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 100% for the single parameter 'paper_ids'. Description adds context by saying 'list of papers' and specifying output format, but does not add substantial meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Format' and resource 'list of papers' into 'APA 7th Edition reference list entries'. It mentions handling specific details (author-count, DOI, italics, ordering), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_citations or validate_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?

The description implies usage for formatting papers into APA 7, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like validate_citations or search_references. No guidance on when not to use it is provided.

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