resolve_identifier

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false; the description is consistent, confirming it performs a network lookup and persists a record ('保存题录'). It adds the scope boundary of not fetching full text, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not cover failure behavior or rate limits.

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 compact sentence with the action and the accepted identifier forms front-loaded, followed by the scope limit. Efficient, though the parameter meaning for project_id is simply absent rather than concise.

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?

For a 2-required-param mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the identifier formats and the save scope but omits what project_id is and what the tool returns on success or on an unresolvable identifier.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real value for 'identifier' by naming the accepted prefixes (DOI, pmid:, arxiv:), but 'project_id' is left completely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (解析/resolve) plus the resource (DOI/pmid:/arxiv: identifiers) and its effect (保存题录/save bibliographic record). The closing clause '不获取全文' explicitly separates it from download_fulltext and other full-text 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 '不获取全文' clause tells the agent the condition under which this tool stops short of full-text retrieval, effectively routing full-text needs elsewhere. It does not name a specific alternative tool (e.g. download_fulltext) by name, but the use context is clear for a known-identifier resolve.

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