download_arxiv

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral characteristics, but it only states the basic action and return path. Missing details such as error handling (e.g., invalid paper ID, network issues), file overwriting behavior, authentication requirements, or potential destructive actions. The description does not contradict any annotations (none exist).

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 concise, with a front-loaded purpose sentence followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 is simple with two parameters and no nested objects, but the description omits details like whether the save_path directory is created if missing, what happens if the file already exists, or potential error scenarios. The presence of an output schema (Path) partially compensates, but the description could be more complete for reliable invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining paper_id as 'arXiv paper ID' with an example ('2106.12345'), and save_path as 'Directory to save the PDF (default: './downloads')'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's minimal property names and types.

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 'Download PDF of an arXiv paper,' specifying a specific verb (download) and resource (arXiv paper). It distinguishes from many sibling download tools that target other repositories (e.g., download_biorxiv, download_pubmed) through the name and explicit mention of arXiv.

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 provides an example arXiv ID and default save path, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., read_arxiv_paper for content extraction, or other download tools for non-arXiv sources). No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are given.

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