arxiv_fetch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It mentions that fulltext availability varies by paper, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it omits details on authentication, rate limits, and error handling that would be expected for network-based fetch operations.

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 consists of two efficient sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides parameter details without excess text. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the key usage points: what each section returns and the availability caveat for fulltext. It lacks mention of error conditions or ID format, but given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, it is largely complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'section' parameter's allowed values and what each returns, adding value beyond the schema. The 'arxiv_id' parameter is implied by context but not explicitly described (e.g., format or examples), leaving some ambiguity.

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 'Fetch an arXiv paper' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on HEP data (inspire_search, hepdata_get) by explicitly targeting arXiv papers.

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 explains the two section options (abstract vs fulltext) and their return types, providing context for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention prerequisites, missing clear usage guidance.

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