get_references

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

No annotations are provided, increasing the burden on the description. It discloses behavior such as the check_library annotation feature, return JSON format, and default/max limits. However, it omits potential rate limits or authentication needs.

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 concise with a clear one-line purpose, structured Args list, and Returns section. It avoids unnecessary detail but is slightly verbose with the Returns line repeating the schema.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return format. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return fields. It lacks information on prerequisites or side effects, but for a lookup tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful parameter explanations (e.g., 'doi: DOI of the paper,' 'limit: Maximum results (default 100, max 1000)'). This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though min_citations could be more detailed.

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 'Find papers referenced by a given paper using Semantic Scholar,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes references from citations (sibling get_citations) and other related tools.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it list exclusions. It implicitly suggests use for references, but lacks guidance on when not to use it or mention of sibling tools.

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