cite_articleGet a formatted citation for a Psychiatry for Children article. Supports AMA, APA, and Chicago styles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Article slug. | |
| format | No | Citation style (default ama). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it supports AMA, APA, and Chicago styles and defaults to AMA, though this is also in the schema enum. No further behavioral traits like error handling or rate limits are disclosed, but the tool is simple and read-only.
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 a single concise sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient.
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?
For a simple 2-parameter, read-only citation tool, the description, schema, and annotations are sufficient. It clearly states the output ('formatted citation') and supported styles. A small gap exists around error behavior or return format specifics, but these are minor for a tool of this simplicity.
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 100% with clear descriptions for 'slug' and 'format' (including the default). The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
Description uses a specific verb 'Get a formatted citation' and specifies the resource 'Psychiatry for Children article'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_article (content retrieval) and search_articles (searching).
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 makes the use case clear (produce a citation) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. The context 'formatted citation' strongly implies when to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a unique purpose: citations, single article retrieval, crisis resources, site info, listing, and searching. No overlap.
All tools use consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., cite_article, list_articles, search_articles).
Six tools is well-scoped for a library server covering retrieval, search, citation, and crisis resources.
Covers core read operations (get, list, search, cite) plus crisis info, but may lack auxiliary operations like topic listing or author lookups.