pubmed_batch_download

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'intelligent download' and 'cross-platform' but these are vague and do not disclose concrete behaviors like rate limiting, delays (despite the human_like parameter), failure handling, or IRB/auth requirements. The agent lacks critical context about potential side effects or operational constraints.

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 front-loads the core purpose. However, the phrase '支持跨平台智能下载' is somewhat vague/marketing-like and could be replaced with more concrete detail. Still, it is brief and to the point, earning a slightly above-average score.

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 moderately complex (batch download with a human_like parameter, max 10 PMIDs, no output schema), but the description is minimal and does not mention the PMID limit, the effect of human_like, or any return/error semantics. It lacks essential contextual information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and anticipate outcomes.

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%, with both 'pmids' and 'human_like' fully described in the schema. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies. It neither enhances nor contradicts the schema.

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 action (batch download), the resource (full-text PDFs of multiple documents), and distinguishes from sibling tools like pubmed_download_fulltext (which is likely single-download). The phrase '批量下载' conveys a specific verb and resource, making the purpose 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 implies usage for batch downloading PDFs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as pubmed_download_fulltext for single articles or pubmed_batch_query for querying. No when-not-to-use or alternative exclusions are provided, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between tools.

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