audit_manuscript

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool scans and validates, but it does not clarify whether it modifies anything, sends external requests, handles errors, or has rate limits. This lack of detail is a gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 very concise—two sentences of purpose plus a parameter doc string. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded with the main action. No fluff or repetition.

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 (one parameter) and has an output schema (not shown), so the description covers the main functionality and parameter format. It does not mention the output structure, but that is handled by the output schema per guidelines.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining the 'text' parameter expects manuscript content in formats like markdown or txt. This provides context beyond the schema's name and type.

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 scans text for DOIs and citations, validates them, and identifies missing DOIs. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like check_duplicate_citations or search_literature.

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 usage when an overall audit of citations in a manuscript is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like check_duplicate_citations or resolve_citation. No exclusions are mentioned.

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