download_hal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and parameters, omitting details about permissions, error handling, or side effects. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a download tool.

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 clear one-sentence summary followed by structured Args and Returns sections. No extraneous information, and the format aligns with typical tool documentation.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential inputs and return value. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral notes, leaving the agent without guidance for handling failures or choosing among siblings.

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 0% description coverage, so the description partially compensates by explaining paper_id as 'HAL paper identifier' and save_path as 'Directory to save the PDF.' This adds meaning beyond titles but remains brief; more detail (e.g., filename format) could improve usability.

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 for a paper from HAL,' specifying the action (download), resource (PDF for a paper), and source (HAL). The presence of many sibling download_* tools (e.g., download_arxiv, download_base) makes this distinction essential, and the description effectively differentiates by naming the source.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like download_arxiv or read_hal_paper. It only describes the basic operation without contextual recommendations or exclusions.

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