profile_papers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves papers and describes parameters, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify data source limitations (e.g., Google Scholar scraping constraints), rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the returned 'Dict: 论文列表' (paper list dictionary) contains structurally. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, making it easy to parse. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information. However, the front-loaded purpose statement ('获取学者的论文') is very brief and could be more informative, slightly reducing efficiency in immediate understanding.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It excels in parameter documentation but lacks output details (only states 'Dict: 论文列表' without structure), behavioral context, and differentiation from siblings. For a tool with no annotations or output schema, more comprehensive coverage would be needed for full contextual understanding, leaving it at a minimum viable level.

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?

The description adds substantial value beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains all three parameters: 'profile_url' as a Google Scholar profile URL, 'count' as the number of results with a default of 5, and 'sort_by' with four explicit options and their meanings. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing complete parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the verb ('获取' meaning 'get' or 'retrieve') and resource ('学者的论文' meaning 'scholar's papers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'scholar_search' or 'paper_detail', which likely have overlapping domains. The title is null, so the description carries the full burden of purpose communication.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'scholar_search' and 'paper_detail' available, there's no indication of whether this tool is for a specific scholar's papers versus general search, or how it differs in scope or functionality. The user must infer usage from the parameter requirements alone.

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