get_fulltext

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions resolving to latest version by default, which is a behavioral detail, but does not disclose other traits like idempotency, authentication needs, rate limits, or error semantics. As a read-like tool, more transparency about what exactly is returned is needed.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action. No unnecessary words, but lacks structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) which could improve scanability.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the structure of returned full-text sections, error behaviors, or boundary conditions (e.g., invalid DOI). Agents would need to infer behavior from the name and schema alone, which is insufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It partially covers 'doi' and 'version' but does not mention 'as_markdown' at all. The description also says 'or URL' but the schema only requires a doi string, which could be misleading. Only 2 of 3 parameters are addressed.

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 retrieves structured full-text sections for a preprint identifier (DOI or URL). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like search_preprints (search) and get_metadata (metadata). However, it does not explicitly contrast with resolve.

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 siblings (search_preprints, get_metadata, resolve). It mentions version parameter handling but lacks context about prerequisites or alternatives.

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