Export Bibliography

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the source-selection behavior: it uses DOI content negotiation for publisher-grade entries and falls back to OpenAlex metadata when no DOI exists. It also describes output compatibility with common reference managers and LaTeX/Pandoc pipelines. This adds meaningful behavioral context, though it does not cover all edge cases like error handling or rate limits.

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?

Four sentences, each adding value: purpose, source behavior, output compatibility, and companion tool. No fluff or repetition. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool produces (a bibliography) and where it can be used. It covers input types, formats, fallback behavior, and integration with other tools. It does not explicitly describe error conditions or output structure details, but those are largely unnecessary for a bibliography export tool with this schema and annotation profile.

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%, with both parameters (identifiers and format) already well described. The description adds minimal parameter-specific detail beyond restating the input types and formats; its main added value is behavioral context rather than parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 begins with 'Build a bibliography from a list of papers'—a specific verb and resource—and lists accepted input types (DOIs, OpenAlex IDs, URLs, titles) and output formats (BibTeX, RIS, CSL-JSON). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like fetch-paper (single paper retrieval) or zotero-save (saving to Zotero), establishing it as the bibliography-generation step.

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 states clear usage context: use this tool to create a bibliography in standard formats for reference managers or LaTeX/Pandoc. It also suggests pairing with search-literature to assemble a reference set. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternative tools (e.g., zotero-save), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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