download_arxiv

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

The description discloses that the tool downloads a PDF and returns the file path, and includes an example. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., if paper not found), whether files are overwritten, or any internet requirement. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and could be more transparent.

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 and well-structured: a single sentence for purpose, followed by clear parameter documentation, return type, and an example. No unnecessary information.

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 absence of annotations or output schema, the description covers the main functionality. However, it could be slightly more complete by mentioning what happens when the paper is not available or when save_path is not provided.

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 meaningful detail beyond the schema titles: it explains the format for paper_id and the default and purpose of save_path. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this is valuable.

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 action ('Download PDF from arXiv') and includes a helpful note about arXiv being free and available. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that download from other sources.

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 arXiv papers but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over sibling download tools for other sources. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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