kci_references

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context about REST protocol and API key requirements, which goes beyond annotations, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or potential limitations.

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 front-loads the core action and scope. The inclusion of REST and auth-key requirements is useful, though it could be structured more explicitly with parameter 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?

Given four parameters, zero schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too minimal to make the tool fully usable. It omits parameter semantics, response format, and usage context relative to sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to navigate.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it only mentions title-based search. The parameters rows, author, and pub_year are left undefined, leaving the agent without sufficient semantic guidance for their use.

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's function: collecting raw references from papers matching a title search term. The specific resource (참고문헌 원형) and condition (제목 검색어에 매칭된 논문들) distinguish it from general-purpose tools, though explicit sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kci_search or kci_collect. The description implies usage for reference harvesting but gives no exclusions or context-dependent recommendations.

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