search_cnki

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's function and parameter restrictions but does not state that it is read-only or mention any side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 with two short paragraphs and an example. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the most important usage rule is front-loaded. No redundant statements.

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 six parameters and existence of an output schema, the description covers the main scenario and critical constraints. It does not explain the return format (likely covered by output schema) but is otherwise adequate for typical use.

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 already has 100% coverage with descriptions, but the tool description adds value by clarifying the relationship between query and author parameters, including the critical rule not to put author names in query and providing an example. This goes beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 specifies the action ('搜索') and resource ('CNKI论文'), and states it returns a paper list. It distinguishes from sibling tools like download_paper_pdf and get_paper_detail, which handle different operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the author parameter instead of mixing it into query, with examples. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or recommend alternatives among siblings.

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