arxiv:get

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: default vs full text, availability constraint for old papers, and fallback to PDF link. No mention of rate limits or auth, but not expected for this tool.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. First sentence states core purpose, second explains conditional behavior. Extremely concise and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema, so description should cover return format. It specifies default return (metadata+abstract) and fallback for old papers, but doesn't detail the full text return format (e.g., string or file). Lacks error handling for invalid IDs.

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 100%, but description adds meaning by explaining that section and save_path trigger full text fetch and noting the age limitation. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 an arXiv paper by ID, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes between default behavior and full text retrieval, differentiating it from siblings like arxiv:search.

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 explains when to use default (metadata+abstract) vs full text (with section/save_path). It notes the limitation for older papers without HTML. Missing explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives for finding papers.

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