get_arxiv_papers

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (get papers) without mentioning side effects, rate limits, caching behavior (despite a cache parameter), permissions, or response format. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with no superfluous words. The primary action and inputs are front-loaded, and the sentence structure is direct 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 tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate high-level context (domain, search methods) but omits details on API limits, caching mechanics, result format, or latencies. It meets a minimal viable standard but leaves gaps for an agent to navigate.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by restating that search uses category or keywords, but does not elaborate on parameter interactions or provide contextual constraints beyond what parameters already specify.

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 research papers from arXiv.org, specifies search methods (by category or keywords), and outlines coverage areas (Computer Science, Math, Physics). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_paperswithcode_latest or search_semantic_scholar.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_paperswithcode_trending or search_paperswithcode. It does not provide conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the domain alone.

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