cnki_link_references

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation with external access. The description adds that matching is 'high-confidence' and produces Markdown links, but does not disclose behavior for unmatched titles, caching, or the effect of the min_confidence parameter. It provides some extra context beyond annotations 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 a single, focused sentence that clearly states the transformation. No unnecessary words, and the structure is easy to parse.

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's core behavior is simple, and an output schema exists, so return values are likely documented. However, the description does not mention edge cases like what happens to titles that cannot be matched, how confidence threshold affects linking, or whether the original text formatting is preserved. Given the annotations and schema, it is minimally adequate but lacks completeness for a robust understanding.

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 50%, and the description partially compensates by using '高置信度' to imply the min_confidence parameter's role. The 'text' parameter is already well described in the schema. However, the 'profile' parameter lacks any explanation in both schema and description, and 'search_missing' is only covered in the schema. The description adds some value but does not fully resolve missing parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('匹配到' and '添加链接') and clearly identifies the resource (CNKI detail pages) and the task (linking paper titles in text). It differentiates from sibling tools like cnki_search or cnki_get_metadata, which focus on searching or retrieving metadata rather than transforming text into links.

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 purpose is self-evident: use for linking paper titles in text. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or which alternative to choose (e.g., when only a single title needs lookup, cnki_search might be more direct). The usage context is implied but not elaborated.

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