zotero_format_citation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that the output is 'dead text' versus live Zotero fields, and the context of 'previewing' implies non-destructive, read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications are made to Zotero items, so a minor transparency gap remains.

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 concise and well-structured: a summary sentence, usage guidance with alternative, and a clear 'Args' section. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy, making it easy to scan quickly.

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 tool is a simple formatting operation, and the description covers its purpose, usage context, alternatives, and all parameters. The presence of an output schema means return-value documentation is not needed. The mention of 'previewing' and 'email, markdown, a slide' provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must fully compensate. It does so effectively: 'item_keys' is explained as Zotero item keys from zotero_search, 'style' includes examples and default, and 'locale' includes examples. This far exceeds what the schema alone provides.

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 ('Render') and resource ('references as formatted citation and bibliography text'), clearly stating what the tool produces. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'word_insert_citation' by explicitly naming the alternative, which enhances clarity.

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 states when to use this tool ('for previewing, or for output that is not a Word document') and when not to use it ('For Word documents use word_insert_citation instead'). It names the alternative tool and explains the difference, providing excellent usage guidance.

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