Get Paper Details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions support for multiple ID formats, this is already documented in the input schema. The description does not disclose important behavioral aspects such as return format, error handling for invalid IDs, whether fields are optional, or any rate limits or authentication requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key capability (multiple ID formats). It contains no filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 the low tool complexity, full schema coverage for all parameters, and absence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly identifies the tool's purpose and primary input types. The only missing element is explicit usage guidance, but the description is adequate for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 the schema fully documents both 'paperId' and 'fields'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by repeating the ID format support, which is already in the schema's parameter description. It neither clarifies parameter syntax nor provides additional context about how fields affect the response.

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 clearly states the verb '获取' (get) and the resource '论文详细信息' (detailed paper information), with specific mention of multiple ID formats. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_author (which gets author details) and search_papers (which searches rather than retrieves a specific paper).

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 implies the tool should be used when you need detailed information about a paper identified by various ID formats. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives such as batch_get_papers or get_paper_citations, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria.

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