cite_articleGet a formatted citation for a Therapy for Teens 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?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read operation, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds the context that it supports multiple citation styles, which is useful but not a deep behavioral disclosure. No mention of potential errors, output format details, or limitations, so it is adequate but not rich.
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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place: it states the action, the resource, and the style options succinctly.
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 retrieval-like tool with full schema coverage and a read-only annotation, the description is sufficient. No output schema exists, but the concept of a 'formatted citation' is self-explanatory. It doesn't cover every edge case (e.g., invalid slug handling), but overall the tool is well-specified.
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 both slug and format explained directly in the input schema. The description repeats the style names (AMA, APA, Chicago) that are already enumerated in the format property, adding no new semantic value. Therefore, the baseline 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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a formatted citation for a Therapy for Teens article.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_article, list_articles, and search_articles, which retrieve or list content rather than produce citations. The supported styles (AMA, APA, Chicago) further clarify the tool's niche.
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 implies the tool is for generating citations, which is clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are obviously different in purpose (search/list/retrieve content). The absence of explicit when-not guidance is a minor gap, hence a 4 rather than 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 serves a distinct purpose: fetching a single article, listing articles, searching, citing, retrieving crisis resources, and getting site info. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (cite_article, get_article, list_articles, search_articles, etc.). The verbs accurately describe the action and the nouns are clear.
Six tools is appropriate for a read-only content library. Each tool covers a necessary functionality (list, search, get, cite, plus safety and context) without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.
The tool surface fully covers the core domain of accessing articles: listing, searching, retrieving, and citing. The addition of crisis resources and microsite info completes the lifecycle for a safe, well-rounded library. No obvious gaps.