Cite (Cache Citation / Refresh Source)

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 the tool writes to a local cache, assigns biblatex-compatible keys, and performs conditional HTTP requests for freshness checks. However, it does not describe error handling, output format for refresh_source, or idempotency, leaving some behavioral traits implicit.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence introducing the tool and the second detailing both actions. It is front-loaded with the purpose and organized efficiently, with no unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 the complexity (16 parameters, 2 actions) and lack of output schema, the description covers the main functions well. It specifies return values for 'add' (cite key and AGLC4 string) but omits output details for 'refresh_source'. For a tool with no annotations, this is reasonably complete but could be slightly more thorough.

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 high (88%), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it mainly restates the action parameter's effect. For the 16 parameters, the schema already provides adequate descriptions, so the description adds minimal extra value.

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 writes to a local citation cache with two distinct actions: 'add' for storing/updating citations and returning a cite key and AGLC4 string, and 'refresh_source' for checking source freshness via conditional HEAD. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bibliography or format_citation by focusing on cache writing.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or contexts where other tools (e.g., format_citation, fetch_document_text) would be more appropriate. With no annotations to supplement, this is a significant gap.

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