get_metadata

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose real behavioral traits: local_only bypasses the network, refresh ignores a 30-day cache, and quality may fail to return JCR metrics because the WoS Starter API lacks them. It omits mutation/auth profile (implied read-only), pagination via limit/offset, and missing-record 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?

Three short, front-loaded lines: first the core action and selectors, then the flag semantics. Each sentence earns its place, and the unusual quality/cache caveats are stated compactly rather than buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the caching/quality caveats are covered. But for an 11-parameter, zero-required tool with no annotations, leaving scope/fields/limit/offset/site unexplained and offering no routing against siblings leaves the definition only minimally sufficient.

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 coverage is 0% and there are 11 parameters, so the description must compensate: it explains record_refs/titles/search_id, local_only, refresh, and quality well beyond the field names. However, site, limit, offset, fields, and especially scope (default "selected") are left completely undefined in both schema and description, which is a substantial residual gap.

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?

"批量收集题录" gives a concrete verb (batch-collect records) plus the resource, and it enumerates the three lookup keys: record_ref, full title, or search_id, along with what is returned (abstract/keywords/DOI). That clearly separates it from discovery tools like search/structured_search, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Listing record_ref/title/search_id as input modes implies you should use this once you already know what you want, rather than to discover papers. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. search_results or export_citations, no statement about what happens when no selector is supplied (all 11 params are optional), and no prerequisites such as login.

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