workspace_get_citations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return' strongly implies a read-only operation and 'stored paper' signals a prerequisite, but the description does not explain the meaning or behavior of include_unresolved or what happens when citations are missing.

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 entire description is one compact sentence with no filler. The core action and key directional choice are front-loaded, and every word contributes to 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 is simple and has an output schema, so return-value details are not required. However, the description omits the meaning of include_unresolved and provides no routing guidance among the citation-related sibling tools, leaving moderate gaps for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful semantics for paper_id ('stored paper') and direction ('incoming or outgoing'), but it leaves include_unresolved undefined even though it is a parameter with a default.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('citation evidence'), and clarifies the two possible directions ('incoming or outgoing') for a stored paper. It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as workspace_get_dependencies or where_used.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other citation/dependency-related siblings. The phrase 'for a stored paper' implies a prerequisite, but no explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives are given.

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