cite

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, return format, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. The cryptic one-liner gives the agent no insight into the tool's runtime behavior.

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 concise as a single sentence, but it is under-specified and poorly structured. While brevity is positive, the sentence is cryptic and does not clearly convey the tool's purpose, making the conciseness counterproductive.

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 5 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema or annotations, this description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain return values, expected input combinations, or the meaning of 'citations' in this context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 only 40% (kind and token have descriptions), and the description adds little. It says 'kind + its args' but does not explain depth, start, or value parameters, nor how they relate to specific kind values. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 'Citations only for a query (kind + its args, as query_*)' is vague and lacks a clear verb-resource structure. It doesn't specify what 'citations' means or what the tool actually does with the query, making it hard to distinguish from sibling tools.

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 use 'cite' versus the sibling query tools (e.g., query_by_status, query_by_kind). The reference to 'query_*' implies a connection but does not explain the appropriate context or alternatives, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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