export_citation

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

With no annotations present, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the formats and action, not mentioning side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or performance characteristics. The output format is implied but not detailed.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is too brief and omits essential details about parameters and usage, making it insufficient for a complete tool definition.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, return values are covered. However, the tool has three input parameters with no explanations, and the description fails to clarify their roles. This lack of completeness hinders correct invocation.

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 0%, meaning parameter explanations are absent. The description does not explain the purpose of 'identifier', 'cluster', or 'format' beyond listing formats. The agent cannot determine how to use these parameters correctly or their relationship.

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 the action (export) and resource (citation) along with the supported formats (BibTeX, BibLaTeX, RIS, CSL-JSON), which is specific and distinct from related tools like 'build_citation' or 'get_citations'.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when to choose between 'export_citation' and 'build_citation' or 'get_citations'. No context or exclusions are mentioned.

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