get_paper_latex

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'safely process, cache,' which discloses caching behavior and sanity processing, going beyond the annotation basics. This adds useful context about latent side effects and safety guarantees, consistent with the non-read-only flag.

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 that immediately conveys the purpose, includes a usage pointer, and has zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and keeps white space minimal.

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?

The tool has only 3 parameters with full schema coverage and a simple return value (LaTeX source text). The description mentions the bounded nature and clearly states the return type. It also provides an alternative usage (section tools), making it adequately complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'bounded,' which aligns with max_chars but does not add significantly new meaning. Since the schema handles parameter semantics well, the description provides only marginal supplementary context.

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 returns bounded original LaTeX source, distinguishing it from sibling section tools. The verb 'Download, safely process, cache, and return' is specific about the action and resource. However, 'safely process' and 'cache' add some ambiguity about the core purpose.

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 advises 'Use section tools for targeted reading,' which provides a clear alternative. This implies this tool is for getting the full source (bounded) as opposed to section-level access. It lacks an explicit 'don't use when' clause, but the guidance is sufficient.

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