cnki_syntax_guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool provides a syntax reference but does not describe the return format (text, structured data), any side effects (though it is inherently read-only), or limitations. The description is functionally transparent but lacks detail on what the agent will receive or any caveats.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and follows with a usage trigger. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant wording.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema reference tool, the description covers the essential points: what the tool returns and when to call it. It does not specify the output format, but for a syntax guide, the agent can reasonably infer it receives textual reference material. Minor gap: could mention the output is parseable or structured, but not critical.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add about parameters, and the description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameters.

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 uses a specific verb (获取/get) and resource (CNKI专业检索表达式的完整语法参考), and explicitly lists the types of syntax it covers (field codes, operators, descriptors). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling search and action tools by being a reference guide rather than a search operation.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use instruction: '在构造复杂检索表达式之前' (before constructing complex search expressions), making the trigger condition clear. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but its role as a prerequisite for search expression construction is unambiguous.

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