cnki_read_online_html

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that access is limited by '当前合法权限' (current legal permissions) and that it handles HTML only, not PDF/CAJ. It also mentions '全部或分段' (all or segmented) reading behavior. This adds value beyond the annotations, though it does not detail error handling or pagination.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately states the format exclusion. No wasted words.

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 tool has a detailed input schema with 83% coverage and an output schema, the description sufficiently outlines the core purpose and limitation (no PDF/CAJ). It could explicitly name alternative tools for non-HTML formats, but the sibling list and tool name provide enough context. The description covers the main usage for a read-only HTML reader.

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 descriptions cover 83% of parameters, including title, offset, section, read_all, and max_characters with meanings. The main description only references 'all or segmented' which maps to read_all and max_characters but doesn't explain them beyond schema. At high coverage, no extra parameter insight is required.

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's function: '使用当前合法权限读取全部或分段的 CNKI 在线 HTML 正文' (read all or segmented CNKI online HTML full text with current legal permissions). It explicitly excludes PDF/CAJ, which differentiates it from download_paper among siblings.

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 that it reads HTML full text and handles only that format, explicitly stating '不处理 PDF/CAJ'. This implies for PDF/CAJ the agent should use a different tool, though no specific alternative is named. The intended use case is clear for reading CNKI HTML content.

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