get_citations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return fields and scope (per note or whole collection) but does not mention potential error cases, pagination, or whether results are exhaustive. It's adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the tool's core purpose in the first sentence, and the second sentence gives usage context. No wasted words; every part earns its place.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns and when to use it, which is complete for a read-only retrieval tool with three optional filters. It lacks an explicit output schema but describes the return fields (repo, path, line range, claim, permalink). Missing minor details like empty-result behavior, but overall context is complete.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning to the parameters beyond the schema; it mentions repo and path as return fields, not parameter semantics. The schema already documents id, path, and repo filters adequately.

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 what the tool returns: citation sources (repository, file path, line range, claim, permalink) for a note or the whole collection. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_notes and get_note by focusing on citations and source verification. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', relying on the noun phrase 'Every source of truth' to convey the action.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to check whether a claim is actually supported, or to find which notes cite a given repository,' giving clear scenarios for use. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the provided use cases are sufficient guidance for an AI agent.

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