Get Paper Citations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the two retrieval modes, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, rate/session constraints, or that paper labels must come from a prior search_cnki call (only the schema hints at this). For a zero-annotation tool this is a notable gap.

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 the core operation front-loaded and no filler. However, it spends its only clause restating the kind enum that the schema already defines, rather than spending that space on usage or behavioral guidance.

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?

With full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, so the essentials for calling the tool are covered. But for a zero-annotation tool with a required paper label sourced from another tool, a hint about that dependency and pagination would materially improve completeness.

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 kind, limit, offset and paper are all documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the kind semantics that the schema already spells out, adding no formatting or value-range detail beyond it. 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 (获取/get) and resource (论文的参考文献/引证文献) and clarifies both directions — what the paper cites vs. who cites it — so the agent can distinguish it from a generic detail lookup. It does not explicitly name or differentiate against siblings like get_paper_detail, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the two-mode framing (references vs. citing), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over get_paper_detail or search_cnki, nor any stated prerequisites. The agent must infer the call context.

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