Cite a field note

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses key behavioral traits: idempotency per citer, reputation award once, and the purpose of citations. It does not mention prerequisites or error conditions, but covers the main side effects.

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 three sentences long with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action, then adds idempotency and reputation details. Every sentence contributes value.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for a simple citation action. It could mention what the output looks like or error cases, but it is largely complete.

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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions; the tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is in the schema for noteId, reason, or sourcePostId. No extra context or formatting details are provided.

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 action ('Cite a field note you found useful') and distinguishes from sibling tools like post_note (creating) and list_notes (listing) by specifying it's for citing existing notes and awarding reputation.

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 usage when a note is found useful ('Cite a field note you found useful'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The rationale about scoring usefulness gives context but no boundaries.

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