Batch Get Papers

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, but it only states the batch size limit (which is already present in the schema's maxItems). It does not mention return format, what happens when invalid IDs are passed, ordering, pagination, or any error/edge-case behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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, front-loaded sentence effectively communicates the core purpose. No filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise, though it lacks any additional structured details that might naturally be included (e.g., noting the optional 'fields' parameter).

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?

The tool has only two parameters but no annotations and no output schema. The description only says 'detailed information', leaving unclear what the response shape is, how the 'fields' parameter affects results, and how failures are handled. This is incomplete for an agent aiming to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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% (both 'paperIds' and 'fields' have descriptions). The description adds no new meaning beyond restating the limit already captured by maxItems. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 ('批量获取' / batch get) plus resource ('论文' / papers) and explicitly scopes it with a maximum of 500. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_paper' (single paper retrieval) and 'search_papers'.

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 intent is implied: use this when fetching multiple paper details at once. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use it over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It provides clear context but no direct comparison to 'get_paper' or other siblings.

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