ctverify:get

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a retrieval operation and specifies the returned fields (cite, context, claim, status, note), which is meaningful behavioral context for a read-only getter.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the operation, the input style, and the output fields efficiently.

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 simple two-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential details: what it retrieves, how it is identified, and what the response includes. It does not discuss error behavior for missing IDs, but that is a minor omission for this tool's low complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so both ids and registry_path are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only the general notion of retrieving 'by ID', which does not materially expand on the schema's existing parameter documentation.

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 action ('Retrieve'), the target resource ('citation entries'), and the lookup mechanism ('by ID'), while also naming the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ctverify:extract or bib:search.

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 implies that this tool is for retrieving known citation IDs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The guidance is indirect rather than explicit.

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