get_citations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it extracts citations and optionally attaches context snippets. However, it does not mention any behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or performance characteristics. Basic transparency is present but not rich.

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 relatively concise, using a single paragraph with clear bullet points for arguments. It could be slightly more structured, but every sentence adds information. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains input and what is returned (citations with optional context). It lacks mention of return format or pagination, but for a simple extraction tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does: it explains that case_id should follow the same format as get_interpretation, and includes that include_context controls whether a snippet of 80 characters is attached. This adds value beyond the bare schema types.

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 that the tool extracts all cited interpretation/case numbers from reasoning documents of Grand Justice interpretations. It specifies the trace direction as backward tracing (which prior judgments a given judgment cites), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_interpretation that retrieve a single interpretation.

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 you need to know which previous interpretations a specific case cites. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes the use case clear. Slight lack of explicit guidance on exclusions.

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