citation_bundle

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full burden. It lists what each entry carries (AssetRef, quote, etc.) and mentions verification status, but does not disclose read/write nature, side effects (except overwrite parameter), auth needs, or rate limits. Incomplete for 13 params.

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 six sentences, front-loaded with purpose. It is relatively concise but could be more structured (e.g., bulleting param notes). No superfluous sentences.

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 13 params, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return value, error conditions, or full usage scenarios. The tool is complex but the description is sparse.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains output_format and wiki_root; the other 11 parameters (doc_id, query, span_id, etc.) are not mentioned. The agent cannot infer their semantics from this description.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Export citation-ready evidence spans as a verified bundle.' It names the output format options and distinguishes this from sibling tools like find_evidence_spans or verify_citation_ref by focusing on bundle export.

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 gives context for using specific parameters (output_format='foam', wiki_root for writing), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like convert_document or table_cite. No when-not-to-use guidance.

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