get_paper_bibtex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the entry is from CNKI official export and supplemented with DOI, abstract, and keywords. However, it does not mention authentication requirements (e.g., login needed via get_login_status) or error cases like missing paper.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every part of the sentence adds value without unnecessary words.

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 is simple with one parameter and an output schema (though not shown, it exists). The description covers the source and content of the BibTeX entry. Missing details like authentication or error handling but still fairly complete for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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%: the 'paper' parameter is well-described in the schema as the label from search_cnki. The description adds no additional parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb '获取' (get) and the specific resource 'CNKI论文的BibTeX引用条目'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_paper_detail (which gets details) and search_cnki (which searches) by focusing solely on BibTeX citation export.

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 usage when a BibTeX entry for a CNKI paper is needed, mentioning it can be directly copied to .bib files. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like find_best_match.

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