download_arxiv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return value ('Path to the downloaded PDF file') and specifies it downloads a PDF, which implies file creation. However, it does not mention error handling, overwrite behavior, or network requirements, preventing a perfect score.

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, well-structured paragraph with no wasted words. It front-loads the action, then concisely lists args and returns in a clean docstring format.

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?

For a simple download tool with an existing output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the action, parameters, and return value. Minor omissions (e.g., file overwrite policy, network dependency) prevent a perfect score, but overall it meets the tool's needs.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains both parameters: paper_id with an example format ('e.g., '2106.12345'') and save_path with a default value ('./downloads'), adding significant value beyond the schema's basic names and types.

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 action: 'Download PDF of an arXiv paper.' It uses a specific verb ('download') and resource ('PDF of an arXiv paper'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming arXiv, which is unique among many download_* tools.

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 for arXiv papers but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., download_biorxiv, read_arxiv_paper). No when-not or exclusion criteria are stated, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name.

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