cnki_get_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the observable return contract ('返回标题、作者、摘要、关键词等'), which is the core behavior for a read-only retrieval tool. However, it omits failure behavior (malformed/unreachable URLs), whether CNKI subscription/login is a precondition, and any throttling or blocking considerations, all of which are material for this vendor.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the purpose ('获取知网文章详细信息') and then pack input and output into a single follow-on sentence. There is no filler and no redundant restating of the tool name, so it is an efficient definition.

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 it is a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is mostly self-sufficient: it explains why the URL you need and what you should get back. The vague trailing '等' leaves the full returned field set to guesswork, and there's no hint of what happens when the URL is invalid, which prevents a perfect score.

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%; the url parameter is already described in the schema as '知网文章详情页URL'. The description reinforces that the URL must be an article detail page rather than a search page, which adds marginal meaning, but with full schema coverage and one trivial parameter the baseline of 3 is exactly right.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('获取知网文章详细信息') and enumerates the expected outputs (标题、作者、摘要、关键词), so an agent understands exactly what the tool fetches. That the input is an article URL, not a query, distinguishes it from the cnki_search/cnki_professional_search siblings, but it earns a 4 rather than a 5 because it never explicitly differentiates itself from the similarly URL-driven sibling cnki_get_citations.

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 guidance is only implied: stating '输入文章URL' implies the tool is appropriate once a specific article URL is already in hand, typically after a search. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-avoid framing and no mention of alternatives such as cnki_get_citations or cnki_download, so the agent has to infer routing from the tool name alone.

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