format_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 states the core operation and does not mention input expectations, return format, side effects, or error behavior, leaving the agent without important behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording or filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple formatting tool, though it is too terse to fully carry behavioral transparency.

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 single-citation formatter, the description plus fully documented schema provides enough to attempt invocation. However, there is no output schema and no description of the return value, which is a meaningful gap given annotations are absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the style enum and reference field. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond echoing that a style is specified, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Format') and a clear resource ('a single citation'), with the style controlled by the schema's enum. It is not tautological and is understandable on its own, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or differentiate from generate_bibliography beyond the word 'single.'

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 phrase 'single citation' implies this tool is for formatting one reference at a time, which weakly contrasts with generate_bibliography, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description does not state alternatives or conditions for choosing parse_references versus this tool.

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