get_paper_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool returns JSON details but gives no information about side effects, error conditions, authorization requirements, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool that likely depends on an external service.

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 concise: two lines explaining purpose followed by a clearly formatted Args/Returns section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 tool has one parameter and an output schema (not shown), so the description adequately covers the return fields (title, author, abstract, etc.). However, it lacks guidance on error handling, prerequisites, or how this relates to siblings like check_cnki_status. Given the moderate complexity, the description is incomplete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by specifying that the 'url' parameter should be a paper detail page URL from search_cnki results. This clarifies the expected source and format, adding value beyond the bare schema.

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 retrieves detailed information of a CNKI paper. The name 'get_paper_detail' aligns with this. Among siblings, it uniquely handles CNKI paper details, distinguishing from search_cnki (search) and download_paper (download).

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 url comes from search_cnki results, implying a usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_wos_detail or check_cnki_status, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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