read_iacr_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. It mentions downloading and extracting, and returns Markdown, but does not disclose side effects like temporary file deletion, caching, authentication needs, or error handling for missing papers.

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 with a single purpose sentence followed by structured Args, Returns, and Example sections. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the Args section could be slightly redundant.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format (Markdown). However, it omits information about network dependency, error handling, and idempotency. For a simple read tool, it is marginally adequate but not fully complete.

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 compensates by providing format examples (e.g., '2024/123' for paper_id) and clarifying save_path as a directory. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal titles.

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 downloads and extracts full text from IACR papers. It distinguishes from sibling tools like download_iacr by specifying 'extract full text' and returning Markdown format.

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 vs alternatives like read_arxiv_paper or download_iacr. The description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements.

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