Get Paper References

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It accurately states the core behavior but adds no detail about pagination, default limit, ordering, or return format. The description essentially restates the title without additional behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 a simple, read-only lookup with a clear schema. The description adequately explains the main purpose, but lacks context about reply structure, pagination behavior, or how it relates to sibling tools. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a complete description would need to cover these aspects.

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%, so both parameters (paper_id, limit) are already documented. The description itself adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the baseline for full coverage. It neither enhances nor compensates further.

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 tool returns papers cited by a given paper (its bibliography). The verb 'get' and resource 'papers' are specific, and the phrase 'cites (its bibliography)' distinguishes it from the sibling get_citations. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast with get_citations, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_citations or get_related. It implies usage for fetching a paper's bibliography but provides no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative tool suggestions.

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