Get Paper Bibtex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden for behavioral transparency. It adds useful provenance and content information: this is the official CNKI export, supplemented with DOI, abstract, and keywords. However, it omits operational behavior such as whether an active session or login is required, whether some papers have no BibTeX, and whether results are cached.

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?

It is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler, and the parenthetical enrichment note earns its place by telling the agent what extra fields appear in the result.

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 it does not need to describe return values, and the description identifies the data source and the enriched fields. The only gap is context about how it fits with its siblings and whether a session is needed.

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?

There is only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100%; the schema already explains that 'paper' is the label field returned by search_cnki. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or sourcing guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas 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?

It uses the specific verb 'get' (获取) with a precise resource, the BibTeX citation entry, and the scope, CNKI papers. It distinguishes itself implicitly from the other sibling tools by naming the output format and the enrichment it adds (DOI, abstract, keywords), though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool to differentiate itself.

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 phrase '可直接复制到 .bib 文件中使用' (can be copied directly into a .bib file and used) implies that this tool is useful when inserting citations into a reference manager. However, it does not say when to choose this tool rather than get_paper_detail or export_papers, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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