get_paper_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or makes network calls. Only the basic action is described.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded and efficient. It could potentially include more context without significant bloat, but it is not overly verbose.

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 simple nature (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, which would improve completeness for a tool that likely requires prior search and is read-only.

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 100% with one parameter. The parameter description ('论文标签（从 search_cnki 返回的 label 字段）') adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema, telling the agent exactly where to obtain the value (from the 'label' field of search results).

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 that the tool retrieves the complete information of a CNKI paper detail page. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('paper detail'). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'download_paper_pdf' or 'get_paper_bibtex', the context and name imply differentiation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or when not. The description does not mention alternatives or prerequisites. It is implied that the tool should be used after 'search_cnki' to get details, but this is not stated.

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