resolve_code_link_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the purpose but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, potential failure modes, or any side effects. For a simple lookup, more transparency is expected.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action with no extraneous words. It is efficient and immediately informative.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core functionality. It could be improved by noting potential errors, but for a basic resolver it is mostly complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds that the single parameter is an 'arXiv ID', which is essential, but does not specify the expected format (e.g., including version or prefix). This provides minimal added meaning beyond the schema.

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 'resolve', the resource 'arXiv ID to GitHub repository URL', and the context 'from the corresponding HF Papers page'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with paper details, daily lists, or reading papers.

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 usage when you have an arXiv ID and need the GitHub repo, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage given the siblings.

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