research_latest

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about ordering (newest-first?), pagination, or what fields an entry contains. It at least implies a read-only listing operation, but the domain term 科研进展 remains undefined.

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?

It is a single short sentence fragment with no filler, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline. Nothing is front-loaded because there is effectively nothing to load.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an ambiguous resource name, the description should define what a 科研进展 entry is and what a caller receives. It leaves both unanswered, so an agent can invoke the tool but cannot predict its results.

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?

There is a single parameter (limit) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already stating the max-50 cap and default of 10. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"科研进展最新条目" restates the tool name research_latest (latest = 最新, research = 科研) without specifying the resource more precisely — it never says whether these are papers, projects, grants, or lab news. It gives no differentiation from near-identical siblings such as news_latest or career_latest.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to an alternative tool. An agent seeing news_latest, career_latest and research_latest side by side gets nothing from this description to help choose.

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