paper_download

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the prioritization of sources (open access first, Sci-Hub as last resort), the return format (Markdown with file path, metadata, source, or error), and includes examples. It does not mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers the core behavior adequately.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by prioritized sources, args, returns, and examples. Each section adds value without redundancy, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains the tool's purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, and return values, and the output schema likely covers return details, so no gaps remain for effective agent use.

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 compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: 'identifier' is explained as 'DOI, arXiv ID, or URL' with examples, and 'output_dir' is described as 'Save directory (default: './downloads')'. This clarifies beyond the schema's basic types, though it could detail format constraints (e.g., URL patterns).

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 academic paper') and the resources involved ('by DOI, arXiv ID, or URL'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'paper_batch_download' (which handles multiple papers) and 'paper_metadata' (which retrieves metadata only) by focusing on single-paper downloading with file output.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (for downloading papers via identifiers) and mentions prioritization of open access sources, which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly compare to alternatives like 'paper_batch_download' for multiple papers, though the distinction is implied.

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