Export Bibliography

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Content is always saved to a file... Returns file path and summary.' It also warns about exportAll being slow. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only or mention any side effects beyond file creation.

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 well-structured with bold section headers and bullet lists. Every sentence adds useful context, and it is front-loaded with the purpose. The length is appropriate for a tool with nine parameters and several format options.

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 selection methods, formats, common styles, and the file-output behavior, which is comprehensive for an export tool. It lacks details about what happens when multiple selection methods are supplied or what the 'summary' contains, but the schema handles parameter defaults and constraints.

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 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters into 'Selection methods' and 'Formats', and by giving common bibliography styles. It does not describe the coins, refer, or tei format options from the schema enum, but the main parameters are enriched with practical usage guidance.

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 first sentence states 'Export items as formatted bibliography or citation data', which is a specific verb+resource+result. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_item or search_items by focusing on formatted output creation.

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 explicitly says 'Selection methods (use ONE)' and lists the available methods, plus cautions 'use with caution for large libraries' for exportAll. It provides clear context for when to use each selection method, though it does not explicitly mention alternative sibling tools or exclusions.

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