cnki_get_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering safety and external variability. The description adds no significant behavioral detail beyond "read metadata"; it doesn't mention caching, refresh behavior, or auto-search as noted in the schema, so it stays at baseline.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core function and inputs with no filler. Every word is purposeful.

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 the rich schema with parameter descriptions, an output schema, and annotations, the description sufficiently orients the agent to the tool's role. It clearly states the input mode (title or search_id) and the output scope (metadata for single/batch papers), which is enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 71%, and the description highlights titles and search_id as the primary inputs, which aligns with the schema. It does not explain other parameters (limit, offset, fields, profile, refresh), but the schema provides sufficient descriptions for most, so the description adds only marginal meaning.

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 reads paper metadata (resource) using full titles or search_id (specific inputs), and supports single or batch mode. This distinguishes it from siblings like cnki_search (search) and cnki_download_paper (download), even without naming them.

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 phrase "按完整标题或 search_id" gives clear context: use this tool when you have complete titles or an existing search_id. It does not explicitly outline exclusions or alternatives, but the condition for use is unmistakable.

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