cite_record

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It describes output as a dict with citation text, style, and DOI, and notes parameter constraints. It does not mention error handling or idempotency, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, usage, parameters, and returns. It is relatively concise, though the 'Returns' section could be considered redundant since the output is simple. No wasted sentences.

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 tool with 3 parameters and mutual exclusivity, the description covers the input constraints, output format, and style options. Lacks mention of validation or error cases, but overall sufficient for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 0%; the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter (record_id, doi, style) with types and constraints, including the mutual exclusivity rule and a list of style options. This is far beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Generate a citation for a Zenodo record in a given style', specifying the verb (generate), resource (citation for a Zenodo record), and style parameter. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_record (retrieves record) or export_metadata (exports metadata).

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?

Explicitly advises 'Provide either record_id or doi (not both)', which clarifies mutual exclusivity. It also lists style options with a default. However, it does not guide when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the purpose is clear enough.

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