get_paper_latex_section

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description does not elaborate on behavioral traits like side effects, error handling, or what happens if the section is not found. It adds minimal context beyond what annotations already imply, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence of 12 words with no filler. Every word adds value.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks information on return format (e.g., plain LaTeX text) and default max_chars behavior. Given the schema covers parameters, the description could be slightly more complete, but it meets the minimum.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds context for section_id ('by outline ID or exact title') but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 verb 'Return', the resource 'one bounded LaTeX section', and the method 'by outline ID or exact title'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_paper_latex_sections (which lists sections) and read_paper (full paper).

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 for retrieving a specific section, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using list_paper_latex_sections to find the section ID first or read_paper for multiple sections. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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