cnki_co_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It states the action (input text) but does not describe side effects, such as overwriting existing content, focusing the input, or triggering search. The absence of destructive hints makes it safe, but details are minimal.

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, concise sentence that covers the core action and the parameter defaults. No unnecessary words or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 input action, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, default target, and custom selector option. It does not mention return values or validation, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, this is adequate.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters (text, into, index) with no gaps. The description adds minimal extra value by explaining the default 'search' as the CNKI search box, which is already implied by the schema. Per guidelines, high schema coverage gives a baseline of 3.

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: entering text into an input box of a collaborative browser. It specifies the resource (collaborative browser) and the action, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like clicking or reading, though the action is distinct enough.

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 the default target (CNKI search box) and allows custom selectors, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others, such as for typing versus clicking. The usage context is implied by the action, but no explicit alternatives are mentioned.

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