latexmk_list_citations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the core read behavior and the optional cross-referencing, but does not mention output format, error handling, or prerequisites. It is neither misleading nor richly contextful.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action (Extract) and scopes it to citation keys. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 has a moderate parameter set and no output schema. The description explains the main function but does not describe return values or the relationship between tex_content and file_path. It is adequate for a simple extraction tool but leaves gaps for an agent to infer.

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 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema, simply implying the use of a LaTeX document and .bib file. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameters clearly.

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 ('Extract') and resource ('all citation keys from a LaTeX document'), with an optional cross-reference against a .bib file. This is distinct from sibling tools like compile or watch, which have different purposes.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need citation keys), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention exclusions. No guidance is given on when to choose tex_content vs file_path, though the schema's oneOf does provide some structure.

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