paper_references

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a Dict of citing papers, but says nothing about pagination limits on count, rate limits, or whether the call fails for unknown IDs — with annotations carrying most of the load, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then structured Args/Returns sections. The sort_by enumeration is verbose but each entry earns its place by defining a value the schema leaves unspecified.

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 three-parameter read-only query with an output schema already present, the description supplies the purpose, defaults, and full sort semantics. Only the identifier format is underspecified, which is a minor gap given the output schema covers return values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents count's meaning and default, and enumerates all four sort_by values with their semantics and default, none of which appear as an enum in the schema. The remaining gap is paper_id, described only tautologically as '论文ID' with no format (DOI, arXiv ID, corpus ID).

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieve the list of papers that cite the given paper (获取引用指定论文的文献列表). It is clearly distinct from siblings like paper_detail or search_papers. One caveat: 'references' conventionally means the works a paper cites, while the Chinese phrasing points to citing works — the ambiguity is worth flagging, though the description itself is readable.

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 only implied by the purpose statement; there is no explicit 'use this when…' guidance, no mention of when to prefer paper_detail or search_papers instead, and no prerequisites such as whether paper_id must come from a prior search.

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