Get Paper Citations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function and omits details about pagination, default limits, sorting, return format, or any side effects. With no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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, concise sentence in Chinese that conveys the essential purpose without extraneous information. It is front-loaded 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?

For a simple list tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose but lacks return value details, pagination behavior, and ordering information. It is functional but has clear gaps that could confuse an agent.

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 input schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by clarifying that paperId refers to the paper being cited, but this is a marginal enhancement over the schema's generic '论文 ID'.

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 tool fetches a list of papers that cite a specified paper, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_paper_references by explicitly noting the direction ('who cited this 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 when to use the tool (when needing citing papers) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. No contrast with get_paper_references or other siblings is provided, so the usage context is clear but not reinforced.

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