get_citation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the parameter and its values, without stating that this is a read-only operation, any permissions required, or side effects. The name 'get' implies read-only behavior, but the description does not confirm or elaborate on it.

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 extremely brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args block is clear and each element earns its place, with no unnecessary words or vague explanations.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (single parameter, output schema present), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics sufficiently. It lacks mention of error handling or relationship to sibling tools, but these are not critical for such a simple retrieval tool.

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 describes the parameter as '引用类型' (citation type) with no allowed values. The description adds concrete enum values ('word' and 'bibtex') and their intended use cases, which is valuable semantic information that goes beyond the schema.

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 '获取COPT的引用格式' (Get COPT citation format), which is a specific verb and resource, and lists the supported formats. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools 'get_reference' and 'get_api_doc'.

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 gives concrete guidance on the citation_type parameter values ('word' for Word documents, 'bibtex' for BibTeX files), which is helpful. However, it does not mention when to use this tool over get_reference or get_api_doc, so the usage context is only implied by the tool name and purpose.

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