下载可授权论文PDF

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the download source order, HTTPS-only requirement, file validation steps (PDF header, size, SHA-256), and the explicit boundary of not bypassing login/captcha/paywalls. These details align with the annotations (non-destructive, idempotent) and add significant behavioral context.

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, dense sentence that efficiently packs the action, source priority, validation rules, and ethical constraints without redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it 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 description thoroughly covers the tool's behavioral specifics, and the output schema presumably handles return values. However, it omits any explanation of the input parameter and the prerequisite context (e.g., needing a completed run), which leaves a minor gap for practical use.

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?

There is only one parameter, run_id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it at all. The agent gets no explanation of what run_id represents or how to obtain it, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 specifies the tool's function: downloading fulltext PDFs with a defined priority order (IEEE official, publisher open, preprint/author manuscript) and validation criteria. This specific verb+resource statement distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_wos or sync_results, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 implies the tool is for downloading fulltexts after a search run, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. There is no when-not guidance or exclusion, leaving usage context mostly implied rather than explicit.

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