get_paper_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation ('获取'), which implies read-only behavior, and describes the comprehensive return format. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether the tool caches results. The description adds value by specifying the scope ('完整信息' - complete information) but lacks operational details.

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, Args, Returns) and efficiently conveys essential information. The purpose statement is front-loaded, and every sentence serves a clear function. Minor improvement could be made by integrating the parameter guidance more seamlessly rather than as a separate Args section note.

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 tool's single parameter with full schema coverage, the existence of an output schema (implied by the Returns section detailing the dictionary structure), and clear differentiation from sibling tools, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, parameter context, and return format without unnecessary detail. The output schema information in the Returns section compensates for any missing behavioral details.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the single 'url' parameter. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that URLs '通常从 search_cnki 结果中获取' (usually obtained from search_cnki results), which provides practical guidance on parameter sourcing. This goes beyond the schema's technical documentation to offer usage semantics.

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 specific action ('获取' meaning 'get/retrieve'), the resource ('CNKI 论文详情页的完整信息' meaning 'complete information from CNKI paper detail page'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on detail extraction rather than searching (search_cnki) or matching (find_best_match). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: after obtaining a URL from search_cnki results. It implicitly distinguishes from search_cnki (which finds papers) and find_best_match (which likely matches queries to papers). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the implied workflow.

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