hf_papers_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it retrieves metadata and specifies key return fields, but it does not mention error handling (e.g., what happens if the paper isn't found), rate limits, or the exact nature of 'URLs'. This is a simple read operation, so the risk is low, but more context would improve transparency.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. It is concise without unnecessary detail.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context by listing the return fields. However, it does not explain the relationship to sibling tools (e.g., hf_papers_check might verify existence) or note that the arxiv_id is required to obtain metadata, though the schema makes that clear. Slightly more context would make it fully complete.

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 schema already describes the only parameter 'arxiv_id' clearly with an example ('2301.12345'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond this, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('full metadata for a paper from Hugging Face'), listing specific return fields (title, authors, abstract, URLs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hf_papers_search (finding papers) and hf_papers_daily (listing daily papers).

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 when you need full metadata for a specific paper, but it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives (e.g., search to find an arxiv_id first) or any exclusions. Without such guidance, it's at the 'implied usage' level.

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