get_paper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions fetching and returning metadata, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state there are no side effects, rate limits, or error conditions; this gap prevents a higher 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?

Two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, usage, and parameter format. No redundant words, well front-loaded.

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 output schema exists and the tool has only one parameter, the description fully covers what the tool does and returns. The user understands exactly what to expect.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning. It explains the parameter format (e.g., '2301.07041'), mentions version suffix, and gives an example. This goes beyond the schema's type 'string' alone.

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 fetches a single paper by arXiv ID and lists specific metadata returned (title, authors, abstract, PDF link). It distinguishes from siblings like search_arxiv (search) and fetch_pdf (PDF download) by specifying a single paper lookup.

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 explicitly states when to use: when user provides a specific arXiv ID and wants full metadata. It also mentions ID format and version suffix. Could be improved by stating when not to use (e.g., for search), but the sibling list provides context.

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