Get Citation Types

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that it counts templates by canonical type, without explaining return format, whether date_limit affects results, auth needs, rate limits, or how canonicalization is determined.

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 that states the operation and key output dimension without waste. The parenthetical examples add useful precision without bloat.

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 a simple count operation with full schema coverage and no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate to understand what it does. It leaves gaps around return structure and how date_limit affects counts, but those are minor for this tool type.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Count') and resource ('citation templates by canonical type') for an article. The examples (journal, book, web, news) clarify what 'canonical type' means. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_ref_count or get_source_type_counts, so an agent might still hesitate between them.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies a use case ('for an article') but never states conditions for selecting this tool over alternatives such as get_ref_count or get_source_type_counts.

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