Parse Cite Type

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses output behavior – returns a cite_type/fields object, or {} when no template is found, which is meaningful fallback detail. However it says nothing about the nature of the operation (purity/side effects) or what 'fields' contains.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return contract. No filler, though it is quite terse given the gaps left elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be re-explained (the description restates them anyway). For a simple single-param parser this is nearly complete; the missing piece is routing guidance relative to the many citation siblings.

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?

With 0% schema coverage and one parameter, the description must compensate. It does add meaning by indicating the input is a single '{{cite ...}}' template string, showing the expected format. It still leaves open whether outer braces/delimiters must be included, so compensation is partial.

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 ('Parse') and resource ('one {{cite ...}} template string'). The 'one' singular scope implicitly differentiates it from siblings like parse_citations and parse_all_citations, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 'one' and '{{cite ...}}' phrasing implies the input type and scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion versus parse_citations, parse_all_citations, or get_citation_types. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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