Get Author Papers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only mentions fetching a list but does not disclose pagination behavior (limit/offset), ordering, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or return format. This is a significant gap for a tool that may return large lists.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly expanded to mention pagination without becoming verbose.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and behavioral details. It only states the basic purpose, leaving pagination, result shape, and edge cases undocumented. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool fully, especially since sibling tools show the system has more complex interactions.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description does not add extra meaning beyond 'specified author', which aligns with authorId. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the weight and the description adds no contradiction or extra nuance.

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 the exact action: '获取指定作者的论文列表' (get the list of papers for a specified author). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_author (author details) and search_papers (general paper search).

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 purpose itself implies when to use it: when you need papers by a specific author. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like search_papers, so usage guidance remains implicit.

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