export_citations

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 reveals the format capability set but says nothing about whether a file is written to disk, what happens with the default 'selected' scope, permission or login requirements, or any limits on export size — significant gaps for an 8-parameter tool with side effects implied by 'filename' and 'template'.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, and the format list, though long, is the only substantive information conveyed. No filler or redundancy is present, though the list would be more useful if attached to the format parameter explicitly.

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?

With eight optional parameters, zero schema coverage, and no annotations, the description leaves most of the call contract unexplained; an output schema exists so return values need not be described, but scope selection, file output behavior, and reference-selection parameters remain opaque. This is far short of what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description only indirectly touches one of eight parameters (format) by listing format names without tying them to the parameter or giving valid string values. scope, limit, titles, filename, template, search_id, and record_refs are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a concrete verb and resource (导出参考文献 / export citations) and enumerates the supported output formats, so an agent knows exactly what capability this is. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as search_results or get_metadata, which also deal with reference data.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. that references must be selected or a search_id supplied first), and no explanation of the 'selected' vs other scope values. The agent must guess the workflow context entirely.

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