download_biorxiv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'free and open access' but omits critical details like error handling on invalid DOIs, rate limits, or confirmation that the operation is read-only and idempotent. The return value is only generically described as 'Path to downloaded PDF'.

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 and well-structured: a one-line purpose, followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. No unnecessary words or repetitions.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: purpose, parameters, and return value. However, it lacks context on error scenarios, authentication needs, or network requirements, which would be helpful for reliable agent usage.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by naming both parameters and providing a concrete DOI example for paper_id. For save_path, it clarifies it as 'Directory to save PDF'. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema, though an example path format would further improve usability.

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 'Download PDF from bioRxiv (free and open access)', identifying the action (download), resource (PDF), and source (bioRxiv). The DOI example further specifies the target, distinguishing it from sibling download tools for other repositories.

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 downloading bioRxiv PDFs but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., read_biorxiv_paper) or when not to use it. No exclusions or context about prerequisites are given.

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