table_cite

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

With no annotations, the description explains that citations are parallel and do not alter table data structure. It lists operations. However, it does not disclose details like idempotency of add, persistence of removals, or behavior under concurrent edits. It provides basic behavioral insight but not comprehensive.

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 well-organized with an emoji intro, bullet list of operations, parameter table, and multiple examples. It is longer than necessary, but the structure aids readability. Every part adds value, though some repetition occurs.

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 11 parameters and 4 operations with an output schema, the description covers core use cases and parameters. However, it omits details on return values (despite output schema existing), error scenarios, and some less common parameters like offset and limit. It provides a solid foundation but is not fully 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains key parameters like operation, table_id, row_index (0-based, optional for get), column_name, refs format with examples, and operation-specific params. However, it does not explain offset, limit, row_id, or the coverage operation, leaving gaps.

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 manages citations (attach, query, remove) on table cells. It uses specific verbs and defines resource scope (table cells). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'citation_bundle' or 'verify_citation_ref', the focus on table cell-level citation management is evident.

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 provides context on when to use each operation and examples for common cases. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives among the many sibling tools. It explains the non-destructive nature but no exclusions.

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