check_manuscript

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

Despite sparse annotations, the description discloses concrete side effects: it writes '<name>-references.qmd' and '.json' into report_dir (default '_starbuck' next to the manuscript) and renders formats (default html, docx for Word). This matches and enriches the non-readOnly/openWorld annotation profile. It stops short of stating overwrite semantics or whether rendering failures are fatal.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and effect, followed by input syntax and then output/return details. Sentences are dense and each carries information, though the second sentence packs two citation dialects together in a way that reads slightly run-on.

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 five-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers input dialects, output artifacts and their location, rendering formats, and even the return payload (count plus first 10 uncited-finding sentences). An agent has enough to invoke it correctly without inspecting the schema.

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 must carry the load, and it does for four of five parameters: path (implicit), formats (default ["html"], "docx" for Word), report_dir (default '_starbuck next to the manuscript'), and bibliography (from YAML header or supplied here). Only 'include_uncited' is left undocumented, which is the one gap keeping this from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair ('Check every cited reference of a Markdown or Quarto manuscript and write a report') and details the two supported citation syntaxes, so an agent knows exactly what the tool consumes and produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling 'check_references', leaving the agent to guess which to pick.

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 implicitly scopes usage by enumerating supported inputs (Markdown/Quarto, [@citekey] with YAML bibliography, or numbered [1] citations with a References heading) and overrides (bibliography 'given here'), which helps the agent decide applicability. But it never states when to use this vs check_references, prepare_claims, or record_claims, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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