cite_articleGet a formatted citation for a Psychiatry 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 description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds supported style context (AMA, APA, Chicago). However, it does not disclose behavior on invalid slugs or the exact output format, which would go beyond the annotation.
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?
Two compact sentences convey the core purpose and available styles without redundancy. The structure front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to scan.
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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and the citation styles supported. No additional behavioral detail is necessary for effective invocation.
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?
Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, including the format enum and default value. The description only repeats supported styles without adding deeper semantic meaning, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('formatted citation') with clear scope ('for a Psychiatry for Teens article'). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_article or search_articles by clearly focusing on citation generation.
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 clearly implies the tool is for obtaining citations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or include any exclusions. The use case is evident from context, but no direct guidance is provided.
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 clearly distinct purpose: fetching a single article, listing, searching, citing, getting 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 (get_, list_, search_, cite_). The style is uniform and predictable across the entire set.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a content library, covering core retrieval operations without unnecessary bloat. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function.
The set covers the main read-only workflows: listing, searching, retrieving, and citing articles, plus crisis and site info. Minor gaps exist, such as no category browsing or related-article suggestions, but these are not critical for the domain.