ctverify:extract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses re-run safety, exact-match preservation, proximity matching behavior (±5 lines), and that ~200 chars of context are captured. It doesn't describe potential failure modes or exact write behavior beyond 'save/merge', but the core behavioral traits are clearly disclosed.

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 dense but well-organized: purpose first, then differentiation, then behavioral guarantees, then workflow. Every sentence contributes meaningful context, and the workflow line provides a compact mental model for the agent.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage workflow, registry behavior, and re-run semantics thoroughly. The main gap is that it doesn't describe the exact return value/output format of the extraction, though the purpose strongly implies what the result will contain.

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 the baseline applies. The description does add useful nuance for registry_path (merge/preserve behavior) and dry_run (re-running after edits), but it doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Extract'), resource ('citations from Pandoc inline footnotes'), and intent ('verification tracking'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from bibliography management, which separates it from the sibling bib:* tools. This makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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 clear workflow context ('extract → set claims → verify each claim → update status') and explicitly notes this is not bibliography management, signaling when not to use it. However, it doesn't name specific sibling tools like ctverify:status or bib:search as alternatives, so the routing is slightly less explicit than it could be.

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