read_arxiv_paper

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

The description discloses that it downloads from arXiv, saves a PDF, and returns Markdown text. However, with no annotations, it does not mention potential side effects like network access, file overwriting, or error handling beyond the provided example.

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, well-structured with Args, Returns, and Example sections, and every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basics but lacks guidance on when to use this tool over siblings and does not mention any limitations like rate limits or paper size constraints.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining paper_id with an example format and save_path as a directory with a default value. It lacks clarity on save_path's exact usage (directory vs. full path) but is otherwise helpful.

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 verb (download and extract), resource (arXiv paper), and output (Markdown). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming 'arXiv' but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over similar tools like read_biorxiv_paper.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., download_arxiv, search_arxiv). The description lacks any context about prerequisites or appropriate use cases.

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