Get Paper References

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. It only states the core action and does not mention pagination behavior, return format, rate limits, or potential errors. As a read operation, side effects are minimal, but the agent has no information about response structure or operational nuances.

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 with no filler. It efficiently conveys the purpose without unnecessary words.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain the return values or pagination details. While the schema documents parameters, the agent has no insight into what the reference list contains (e.g., titles, authors) or how to handle paging. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that could return potentially large lists.

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?

All three parameters (paperId, limit, offset) have exhaustive descriptions in the input schema, providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 (获取/get) and clearly identifies the resource as the paper's reference list, explicitly clarifying that these are works cited by the paper. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_paper_citations, which would retrieve works citing the 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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_paper_citations or get_paper. The differentiation is only implicit through the wording of the description, not directly stated.

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