get_bibliography

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the core function but does not disclose return format, error handling, potential rate limits, or behavior with invalid item keys or style names. This is a significant gap given zero annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by a compact Args section. No wasted words, and every part adds value.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description remains minimal. It lacks usage alternatives and error handling, but the tool's core behavior is clear. Given its relative simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in style/locale handling.

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 schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It does so by explaining item_keys as 'Zotero keys of the items to include' and providing example values for style and locale. However, it does not mention defaults or constraints (e.g., CSL style name validity), though schema provides defaults.

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 'Generate a formatted bibliography for one or more items,' identifying the specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_item or search_items by focusing on bibliography output rather than retrieval.

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 tool's usage is implied by its name and description, but no explicit guidance is given about when to use it versus alternatives, nor is there mention of prerequisites like obtaining Zotero item keys through search_items. It's not misleading, but it doesn't provide context on selecting amongst siblings.

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