get_paper_citations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses a genuinely useful behavioral trait: '论文本身无引文数据时会返回业务错误' (returns a business error when the paper has no citation data). It also pins the output shape to search results via '字段同搜索结果'. It does not describe the error's structure or list ordering, but for a simple read-only list tool this is solid coverage.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the core function and the cite_type selector, the second captures the important edge case. Every clause earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 3-parameter tool with fully documented schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the input requirement (paperid), the mode selection (cite_type), the output shape by reference to search results, and the error case. The main gap is that 'fields same as search results' assumes the agent already knows search_papers' return structure, and no detail is given on the business error's format.

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 description coverage is 100% with paperid, cite_type, and max_results all documented, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the cite_type modes (reference/citation) already present in the schema enum and adds the 'fields same as search results' output hint, but adds no materially new parameter-level meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '按 paperid 返回该论文的参考文献...或引证文献...列表' (return the reference/citation list by paperid). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings search_papers (finding papers by query) and get_paper_detail (single-paper metadata) by centering on the citation relationship of a known paper.

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 opening '按 paperid' establishes the key prerequisite: the caller already has a paper id, and the schema notes paperid comes from search_papers results, implying a follow-up workflow. The cite_type semantics (reference vs citation) are explicit, but the description never names alternatives or states when not to use this tool versus get_paper_detail.

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