discover_papers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses significant behavior: the 8 sources, the need for a token for ADS ('需 token'), the default source set, and the return contents (metadata, OA PDF links, in-library status). It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but covers the key operational aspects.

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 dense but well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then lists sources, then provides usage patterns, and ends with the default behavior. Every sentence adds actionable information; there is no filler or tautology.

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's complexity (8 sources, domain-specific recommendations, default routing) and the absence of annotations/output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, how to choose sources, and what happens if sources are omitted. No critical information appears missing for correct invocation.

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?

Although the schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds meaning beyond it: 'limit' is clarified as per-source ('每源条数'), 'sources' is tied to the domain routing advice, and 'query' gets the hint that English works better. This enriches the bare schema definitions.

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 a specific action: '在公开学术源搜索论文候选' (search paper candidates in public academic sources), with explicit outputs ('返回元数据 + OA PDF 链接 + 是否已在 Zotero 库中'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_zotero_library (local library search) and import_to_zotero (import action) by focusing on external discovery.

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 gives explicit domain-based source selection advice ('按提问方向只选 2-3 个相关源'), including mappings like '生物医学→europepmc+pubmed 语义的 openalex' and '天文物理→ads+arxiv'. It also specifies the default source set and warns against full polling ('避免全量轮询'), giving clear decision rules.

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