get_citations

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the action (extract citations) and optional context, but it does not mention whether it is read-only, what happens on missing case_id, rate limits, or any side effects. Significant gaps remain.

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 relatively concise, with a clear structured args section. It front-loads the main purpose and then details parameters. However, it could be slightly shorter without losing meaning.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return format. It only states that citations are extracted and optionally with context, but does not describe whether it returns a list, the structure of each citation, or any other details. This is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the output.

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 case_id format (same as get_interpretation) and include_context function (attaches 80-character context snippets). This adds value beyond the schema, which only provides names and types. The coverage is good for both parameters.

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 extracts all cited interpretation/judgment numbers from the reasoning of constitutional interpretations. It specifies the direction (backward tracing) and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_interpretation which returns full text.

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 implicitly indicates when to use (to get citations from a given case), but it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. No comparison with siblings is provided, leaving room for ambiguity.

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