download_iacr

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

No annotations provided; the description is minimal. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., if paper_id is invalid), overwrite behavior for save_path, or any network/authentication requirements. This leaves the agent underinformed.

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 extremely concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. Each sentence serves a distinct role: purpose, parameter descriptions, return value. No extraneous content.

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 (though not shown), the description adequately covers core functionality. However, it lacks details on error handling, file overwrite policy, and network dependencies, which moderately reduces completeness for a download operation.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema: it provides an example format for paper_id ('2009/101') and clarifies save_path as a directory. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description effectively compensates for missing schema metadata.

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's objective: 'Download PDF of an IACR ePrint paper.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like download_arxiv by targeting IACR ePrint specifically.

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 IACR papers but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., read_iacr_paper, other download_* tools). No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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