AxKnowledgeBase_get_paper_asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses return formats ('figure comes back as an image the model can view directly; a table comes back as markdown') and a notable size caveat ('Figures have no size cap'). This is useful behavioral transparency, though it does not cover error cases or permissions.

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 three concise sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. The second and third sentences add meaningful behavioral detail about return format and response size; no sentence is wasted.

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 3-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the data source, explains how to address the asset, describes both output types, and warns about large responses. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by tying seq to the output of search_paper_assets and by explaining what each kind will return. This goes beyond the schema's short parameter descriptions, raising the score to 4.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Download one figure or table from a paper in Axiomatic's curated knowledge base.' It also specifies the addressing method (position via seq), which separates it from sibling tools that return full paper markdown or operate on private knowledge bases.

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 gives clear usage context by stating the asset is addressed by 'its position in the document (seq, from search_paper_assets)', implying this tool should be used after a search_paper_assets call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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