cite_term

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It transparently describes the tool as returning a formatted citation, lists supported formats, and implies no side effects or destructive behavior. This is sufficient for a read-only formatting tool.

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 a clear first sentence defining purpose, followed by usage guidance and parameter details. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Front-loads the core function effectively.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and output nature (a citation). With sibling tools, the role is distinct and complete. No gaps identified.

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%, so description must explain parameters. It does: name_or_slug with examples ('Context Amnesia', 'context-amnesia'), format with explicit list ('plain, markdown, inline, bibtex, jsonld, all') and default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type/required/default.

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 'Return a formatted citation for an AI Dictionary term' and explains use case 'when you want to reference a term with a proper citation and link'. It distinguishes from siblings like lookup_term (definition retrieval) and random_term.

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 when to use: 'Use this when you want to reference a term in conversation with a proper citation and link'. It lists supported formats but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives. However, context from sibling tools makes usage clear.

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