download_paper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions downloading and creating a resource, implying a write operation, but doesn't specify what 'create a resource' entails (e.g., file format, storage location, or permissions required). It also omits details like rate limits, error handling, or whether the download is immediate or asynchronous, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('download a paper'), making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the download and resource creation aspects for clarity.

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 complexity of a download operation with no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'create a resource' means, the expected output (e.g., a file path or data), error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool that likely involves file I/O and resource management, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('paper_id' and 'check_status') with their types and purposes. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining arXiv ID formats or the implications of 'check_status'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool downloads a paper and creates a resource, which is a clear purpose with a specific verb ('download') and resource ('paper'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'read_paper' or 'list_papers', leaving ambiguity about when to use each. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 versus alternatives like 'read_paper' or 'search_papers'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid arXiv ID, or exclusions, like whether it works for all paper types. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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