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 effectively describes key behaviors: it downloads to a local directory (./.arxiv by default), handles file existence with a 'force' parameter, and returns a local file path. This covers operational aspects beyond basic functionality, though it lacks details like error handling or network behavior.

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 and well-structured: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and follow with essential behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place by adding critical information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the download action, local storage, and return value, and the output schema likely covers return details. However, it could benefit from mentioning sibling tool relationships or error cases for full completeness.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('arxiv_id' and 'force') thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the 'force' parameter's purpose ('even if file exists'), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Download PDF') and resource ('for a specific arXiv paper'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_paper' (likely metadata retrieval), 'list_downloaded_papers' (listing), and 'search_papers' (searching). It provides a verb+resource+scope combination that leaves no ambiguity about its function.

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 a PDF download is needed, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_paper' (which might retrieve metadata without downloading) or 'search_papers' (for finding papers). There's no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios, leaving usage context inferred rather than clearly defined.

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