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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does communicate that the result is a 'complete, runnable recipe' and clarifies what each pattern covers ('REST scan + verdict parsing,' 'MCP client connect + prompt'). However, it never explicitly states that the tool returns example code rather than performing the cited operation, and it does not disclose output format or side-effect profile.

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 short, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a clean structured 'Args' list for the parameter semantics. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the patterns and the recipe nature. The main gap is the lack of an explicit statement that this tool only returns example code and does not execute the scan or connect to a client, which would fully prevent confusion with sibling operational tools.

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 schema only defines a string parameter with a default and no enum, so description coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by naming the exact allowed values ('python_scan' and 'agent_watch') and explaining what each pattern includes. This gives an agent the semantic context needed to set the parameter correctly.

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 states the tool provides a 'Complete, runnable recipe for a common Cited integration pattern,' which identifies both the action (provide a recipe) and the resource (Cited integration patterns). It lists the two supported pattern variants, helping distinguish it from operational siblings like cited_scan and cited_report, though it does not explicitly contrast with documentation-style siblings like cited_api_docs.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose cited_examples over its siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only enumerates the two pattern options and their contents; an agent must infer that this is a reference/examples tool rather than a live operation. This is effectively no guidance for tool selection.

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