Download Paper Pdf

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the important trait that the download depends on a local persistent SSO session and institutional authorization. It does not disclose side effects (writes a file to disk), failure behavior when the session expires or entitlement is missing, or whether a verification window may open (relevant given the open_verification_window sibling).

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the key constraint (authorized via persistent SSO) is front-loaded. It is efficient but so terse that it omits behavior an agent needs, leaving little structure to build on.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and both required parameters are fully documented in the schema. Still, for a tool that mutates the filesystem and depends on live authentication, the description should say what happens on auth failure or when the PDF is already cached — gaps that matter given siblings like list_cached_papers and renew_session.

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%, and the schema already explains that 'paper' is a label from search_cnki and 'save_dir' must be an absolute path. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('下载…CNKI PDF 文件') and adds the retrieval mechanism (local persistent SSO session). An agent can tell it downloads a single PDF for one paper, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling download_papers_batch or read_paper_pdf.

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 clause '机构已授权的' implies the precondition that the user must have institutional entitlement, which is useful routing context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. download_papers_batch / read_paper_pdf / list_cached_papers guidance, and no statement of what to do when unauthorized.

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