Export Papers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses useful traits: it works purely locally with no network access, it renames files by a deterministic year_author_title scheme, and it explains that the cache stores hash names — the reason the export exists. It still does not say what happens when a paper is not cached, when the output directory already contains files, or what the return looks like, but the disclosures it does make are valuable.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core operation and then the motivation. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler, though the second paragraph is largely rationale rather than operational detail.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool whose parameters are fully documented, with an output schema, and with no safety annotations needed beyond 'local, no network', the description is nearly complete. It gives what the tool does, why it matters, and where the output goes; only edge-case behaviour (what happens when a paper is not cached) is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented — the paper labels (cnki:… / zotero:…) and the default output directory. The description adds no extra syntax or format details about them, so the baseline of 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 states a concrete verb and resource: it copies cached paper PDFs, renames them to '年份_作者_标题.pdf', and writes them into one folder. The line '纯本地，不联网' tells an agent it is a local file operation, which separates it from the network-downloading sibling tools such as download_papers_batch and download_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?

It gives a clear context for use: when the paper is finalised and the references must be handed to someone else, creating a plain 'list of citations'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the sibling it replaces (for example, download_papers_batch when the PDFs are not yet cached), so the guidance is solid but incomplete.

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