文献关系分析

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

The description details relation types and analysis modes, adding behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not mention potential rate limits or data volume implications for network analysis.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, relation types, parameters, analysis modes). While it is somewhat long, it is front-loaded with essential information. A few sentences could be tightened, but overall it 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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description covers most aspects but misses the return format or examples of output. The analysis modes and parameter details are good, but the missing 'sources' parameter and lack of output documentation leave gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains most parameters (identifiers, id_type, relation_types, max_results, analysis_type, max_depth) but omits 'sources' and does not clarify the dual 'identifier'/'identifiers' fields. The parameter explanations are helpful but incomplete.

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 it analyzes citation relationships, referencing, similar, and citing papers. It uses specific verbs ('分析') and resources ('文献关系'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_references' by offering multiple relation types and analysis modes.

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 provides implicit usage guidance through analysis modes (single, batch, network) and parameter combinations, but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it. The three analysis modes help the agent decide based on input cardinality.

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