Format Reference

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes formatting rules (alignment, emphasis placement, month abbreviation) but says nothing about whether the tool is pure (no side effects), what it returns, or any error conditions. The formatting specifics add some value, but the overall behavioral profile remains under-specified.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The bullet points are compact and each adds a concrete formatting rule. There is no redundant filler, though the bullets could be interpreted as output details rather than input guidance.

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 15 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to supply the inputs, does not clarify the required vs optional parameters, and does not cover the expected behavior beyond formatting rules. The output schema exists, so return values are partly covered, but the input side is neglected.

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% and there are 15 parameters, yet the description provides minimal mapping. It hints at title versus subtitle handling and emphasis style, but does not explain the roles of parameters like entry_type, authors, year, or most others. An agent would have to infer parameter usage from the schema alone, which lacks descriptions.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Formats a bibliographic reference according to ABNT NBR 6023:2018.' The following bullets detail formatting rules, which reinforce that this tool applies ABNT styling to reference entries. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling 'format_citation', leaving ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never mentions sibling tools like format_citation or explains scenarios where one is preferred. There are no prerequisites or conditions for use.

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