get_paper_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the returned data fields, which is helpful, but does not mention potential access restrictions, error behavior for invalid URLs, or any side effects. As a read-only retrieval tool, the core behavior is clear, but important context is missing.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the return fields. There is no unnecessary information, and it is easy to parse quickly.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers what the tool does, what input is needed, and what output can be expected. However, it lacks explicit links to sibling tools and any mention of potential failure modes or access requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 schema already provides a 100% description coverage for the single 'url' parameter, including an example. The tool description simply repeats '传入论文详情页 URL' without adding new meaning beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 tool's function: retrieving detailed information for a CNKI paper, listing specific fields (title, author, institution, etc.). The verb '获取' and resource '知网论文的详细信息' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like search_cnki and find_best_match, which are search-focused.

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 instruction '传入论文详情页 URL' makes clear that the tool requires a paper detail page URL, implying it should be used when such a URL is already available. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., when searching is needed).

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