build_citation_canvas

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency weight. It discloses behavioral traits: output is saved as a Canvas file in the vault, Mermaid is returned, and the slug defaults to anchor.arxiv_id. This is sufficiently transparent for a visualization 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 brief purpose statement, a direction clarification, and a clear arg list. It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly more concise by omitting redundant schema-like details already covered.

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 complexity (nested objects, 5 params, output schema exists) the description covers the main aspects: flow direction, file saving, and arg defaults. It does not explain return values explicitly, but output schema covers that. Minor missing detail on how to retrieve Mermaid output.

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 the description must compensate. It provides detailed structures for anchor (fields), ref_groups, and cite_groups (topic and papers arrays), and clarifies direction options and slug fallback. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose: producing a visualization using an anchor and topic groups of references and citations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning Mermaid (response) and Canvas (vault save), which are unique to this tool.

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 parameter details but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_citation_contexts or get_citations_by_citations. Usage is implied through the arg descriptions, but no when-not-to-use or comparison is given.

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