get_paper_figures

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully discloses behavior: it returns title, inspire url, and a list of figures with captions, descriptions, and download URLs. Nothing is hidden about side effects or state changes (none 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 three sentences plus clear bullet-like examples. It front-loads the purpose and then gives parameter specifics. No extraneous information.

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 has an output schema and the description covers inputs and outputs (title, url, figures list), the description is complete for an agent to correctly invoke and understand the response. All necessary context is provided.

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 0% description coverage; the description compensates fully by providing concrete formatting examples for each identifier type (e.g., 'arxiv:2301.12345', '10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.456789'). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare 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 tool retrieves figures for a specific paper, listing the returned elements (title, url, figures with captions etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_paper_details and search_papers by focusing on figures specifically.

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 says 'Provide at least one identifier' and gives examples of accepted formats (inspire_id, arxiv_id, doi). While not listing when NOT to use it, the guidance is clear and context-driven.

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