citeguard_status_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses the default behavior ('does not contact OpenAlex/Crossref/arXiv/Semantic Scholar and does not load model weights') and the opt-in live probe (`check_sources=true`). This is more transparent than most tool descriptions.

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?

Three sentences with no waste: purpose, when-to-use, and behavioral defaults are each front-loaded in their own sentence. The structure is easy to scan and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers what the tool returns, when to call it, and the default/opt-in behavior for source checks. It doesn't describe the output structure, but given there is no output schema and this is a status tool, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the result at a high level.

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, and it does. It explains that `check_sources=true` triggers a lightweight live probe and that `health_query` is used for that probe, adding meaning beyond the schema's type/default fields. It doesn't detail accepted query formats, but the default value provides a usable example.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Return MCP configuration and dependency status.' It clearly positions the tool as an entry-point diagnostic for setting up CiteGuard or troubleshooting, which distinguishes it from the citation-verification and claim-support sibling tools.

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 explicitly says 'Call this first when setting up CiteGuard or diagnosing surprising results,' giving clear context for when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'first' ordering implies it precedes the sibling tools.

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