get_paper_sections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states 'cached paper' but does not explain behavior if the paper is not cached (e.g., error, auto-cache). No disclosure of whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. Basic retrieval transparency is missing.

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 with no filler. Every word is functional and necessary.

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 (one required param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequate but leaves questions about the caching requirement and the format of the returned outline. With sibling tools, some usage guidance would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, which is described as 'arXiv paper ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Get the section titles and outline of a cached paper,' which uses a specific verb and resource. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'get_section_text' (which retrieves full section content). The mention of 'cached' adds a subtle scope that may not be obvious.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_section_text' or 'get_paper_context'. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., paper must be cached) or typical use cases.

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