download_semantic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It only states it downloads a PDF and returns the path, but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., paper not found), or any side effects. This is insufficient for a download tool.

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 structured in a docstring format with Args and Returns sections. However, it is verbose and could be more concise. The parameter formats are repeated across lines, and the overall length exceeds what is necessary for a simple download tool.

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 that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description adequately covers the return path and parameter details. However, it lacks information about error cases, file overwriting behavior, or performance considerations. For a download tool, this is nearly complete but missing some practical context.

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, but the description provides extensive parameter details: paper_id lists 7 explicit formats with examples, and save_path has a default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal titles.

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 'Download PDF of a Semantic Scholar paper,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. This distinguishes it from siblings like download_arxiv (different source) and read_semantic_paper (read vs download).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the parameter details for paper_id imply Semantic Scholar identifiers, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over download_with_fallback or other download tools. Usage context is implied but not clarified.

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