Format Citation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions output formats (text, HTML, JSON) and locale support, but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or validation behavior. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds value (identifiers, styles, output formats). No redundant or wasted text.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers input format, output formats, style options (including CSL), locale, and footnote feature. Could mention error behavior but overall complete for typical use.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as listing example identifiers and styles. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 formats academic citations from identifiers into specific styles, listing examples (DOIs, PMIDs) and styles (Vancouver, APA, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings (exportCitation, resolveIdentifier) which handle different aspects of citation processing.

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 explicitly states the tool's function and inputs, making it clear when to use (when you have identifiers and need formatted citations). However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives, though sibling tools are listed in context.

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