download_paper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states the download function and mentions returns (file path or error), but lacks details on file overwriting, large file handling, timeouts, or authentication limits. This is insufficient for a download tool.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a structured Args/Returns section. It front-loads the main action and uses no unnecessary words. Every part is efficient.

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 download tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and basic parameter semantics. It lacks details on file naming and overwriting but is largely complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 description must compensate. It explains that 'url' is the paper detail page URL and 'save_dir' is the save directory with a default path. This adds meaning beyond the schema but does not specify URL formats or constraints.

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 downloads CNKI papers in PDF/CAJ format. The verb 'download' combined with resource '知网论文' is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_cnki or get_paper_detail.

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 mentions the prerequisite of being logged in (institutional IP or account) and provides default save directory. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as comparing with get_paper_detail which might provide preview but not download.

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