Resolve Citation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses validation against AustLII, fallback behavior, and mode-specific operations. However, it does not mention potential error conditions, rate limits, or required authentication, which are relevant for a tool that queries an external service.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: overall function, default behavior, and mode details. It is front-loaded with the main action and efficiently covers all necessary aspects without 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 tool's complexity (three modes), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It explains behavior for each mode. Minor omissions include error handling and return value specifics, but overall it provides sufficient operational context.

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 67%, with citation and mode having descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining the mode logic (e.g., 'auto validates then falls back to text search'). The format parameter is only described in schema, but the tool's core modes are well-covered.

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 resolves a citation to its authoritative source using AustLII. It distinguishes three specific modes (auto, validate, search) with distinct behaviors, and the verb 'resolve' accurately describes the action. The sibling tools like 'cite' or 'format_citation' have different purposes, so this tool is well-differentiated.

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 explains when to use each mode (auto for typical resolution, validate for existence check, search for text search). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to siblings like 'format_citation' or 'jade_lookup', which could help an agent choose more precisely.

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