download_paper

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 mentions that the file is stored in the cache and that the local path is returned, but it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting cached files, network access requirements, or error conditions. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the action ('Download'). Every sentence adds value: the first specifies the resource and format, the second clarifies return value and the alternative tool. No wasted 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?

Given the tool's relative simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. It explains the return value explicitly, gives format options, and contrasts with a sibling tool. The only gap is the unexplained session_id parameter, which could affect session-related usage. Overall, it is nearly complete for common use cases.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions. It explains the fmt parameter by listing the allowed values (pdf or source/LaTeX tarball) and implies that paper_id is the identifier. However, session_id is not explained at all, leaving one of three parameters ambiguous.

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 downloads a paper's raw pdf or source tarball into the cache, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool read_paper by explicitly noting that read_paper extracts text instead.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use read_paper when extracted text is needed, providing a clear alternative and the condition for choosing that alternative over this tool. This meets the 'explicit alternatives' criterion.

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