format_references_apa7

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors (author-count rules, DOI formatting, italics, alphabetical ordering) but omits details on input validation, error handling, or output format. The disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds specific value. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a formatted string, a list, etc.), leaving a significant gap for an agent to understand the full usage context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for paper_ids. The tool description repeats that it formats papers but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema's 'Papers to format as references'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool formats a list of papers into APA 7th Edition reference list entries, specifying key behaviors like handling author-count rules, DOI formatting, italics, and alphabetical ordering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_academic or generate_citation_network.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations. It only implies the tool formats references but does not direct the agent on appropriate contexts or exclusions.

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