mesa_datacite_template

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the shape of the returned payload (the scaffold columns), which is genuine behavioral context, but it never states that the call is a static, side-effect-free read with no auth or mutation implications. For a zero-parameter static tool the omission is low-risk but still a gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the payload detail in a parenthetical. It is dense but every clause earns its place; the parenthetical enumeration is slightly heavy but still readable.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does list the scaffold's fields. What is missing is confirmation that the result is static and requires no input, which the input schema states but the description does not reinforce.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the 4 baseline applies and the description correctly needs to add no parameter detail. The schema additionally documents that no input is required, so nothing is left ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('DataCite 4.x field scaffold') and enumerates the contents of that scaffold (field, required?, repeatable?, controlled vocabulary, canonical AVU key). It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as mesa_ols_generate_template or mesa_datacite_export, so an agent must infer which one to call.

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 trailing phrase 'to drive a complete, valid record' implies the intended context — use it as a planning/scaffolding step before building or validating a record — but there is no explicit when-to-use rule, no exclusions, and no named alternative. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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