cnki_export_citations

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotation readOnlyHint=false. It does not mention that uncached titles trigger automatic searches, that files are saved to a workspace, or any side effects. The phrase '安全自定义模板' is vague and uninformative.

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?

A single, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose and lists output options. No redundant fluff, front-loaded with the action and object.

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 tool has 8 parameters, complex behaviors like auto-searching uncached titles, file saving, and custom templates, but the description only provides a high-level summary. It does not prepare the agent for side effects, prerequisites, or exceptional cases, though schema parameter details partially fill this gap.

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 75%, covering most parameters (format, titles, profile, search_id, save_filename, custom_template). The tool description itself does not explain parameters, but the schema carries the weight. Missing limit and offset are standard pagination parameters, so the lack is not critical.

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 verb '导出' (export) and the resource '缓存题录' (cached bibliographic records), listing specific output formats (BibTeX, RIS, EndNote, CSL-JSON, CSV). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search, download, and read operations.

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 that it exports cached records, which implies a prerequisite (having cached data). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this for export tasks.

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