extract_paper_figures

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the storage path pattern and fallback behavior for the slug parameter, but does not cover behaviors like overwrite policy, handling of uncached PDFs, or side effects.

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 efficiently structured: two sentences for purpose and a clear parameter list. Every line adds value, no redundancy.

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 (2 params, output schema provided), the description covers key aspects: what it does, where it saves, and fallback behavior. It lacks error conditions but is sufficient for a focused extraction tool.

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 compensates by explaining both parameters: paper_id (arXiv ID for PDF cache lookup) and slug (vault directory name, with fallback). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 'save' and the resource 'caption-matched raster figures from cached PDF'. It specifies the storage location and distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'extract_paper_tables' by focusing on figures.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'prune_paper_figures' or 'get_paper_by_id'. The description mentions ADR references but does not provide usage context or exclusions.

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