get_paper_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'downloading and extracting text from its PDF,' which implies network access and processing, but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling (e.g., if the PDF is unavailable), performance (e.g., time to download/extract), or side effects (e.g., caching). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Get the full text content of a paper by downloading and extracting text from its PDF.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's function.

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 complexity (involving PDF download and text extraction) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., raw text, structured content), potential errors, or dependencies (e.g., internet access). For a tool with no structured data to rely on, more contextual information is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'paper_id' parameter well-documented as an 'arXiv paper ID (e.g., 2104.13478 or cs/0001001).' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose: 'Get the full text content of a paper by downloading and extracting text from its PDF.' It specifies the verb ('get') and resource ('full text content of a paper'), and the method ('downloading and extracting text from its PDF') adds useful detail. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_paper' (which might return metadata rather than content), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools (e.g., 'get_paper' for metadata, 'search_papers' for finding papers) or specify contexts where this tool is preferred. Without such information, users might struggle to choose between tools, resulting in a low score.

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