primo_cite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or makes external calls. The note about verifying citations implies potential inaccuracies but is insufficient.

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 with clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the note about verification is valuable. No unnecessary information.

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?

While the description covers the core functionality, it lacks context about the tool's integration with Primo, limits on record IDs, or performance considerations. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more guidance on usage context would improve completeness.

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 description explains both parameters in the Args section: record IDs are 'Primo record IDs' and style lists five options with apa7 as default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default values, especially given 0% schema description coverage.

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: 'Generate formatted citations for library records.' It specifies inputs (record IDs and style) and output (formatted citations), and distinguishes from sibling tools like search, export, and suggest.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like primo_search or primo_export. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The note to verify citations hints at caution but does not provide usage rules.

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