arxiv:get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses that HTML full text is only available for papers from ~2024+, with older papers falling back to metadata + abstract + PDF link. This adds context beyond simple 'get' semantics, though it does not cover error cases or rate limits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase adds behavior that isn't already in the schema. It's efficient without being terse.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return behavior (metadata+abstract vs. HTML full text vs. PDF link) and the age caveat. This is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect, though it doesn't detail the exact JSON shape.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the conditional behavior of `section` and `save_path` triggering full-text fetch and noting the age availability, which is not in the schema. This goes beyond the schema's terse 'Triggers full text fetch'.

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, using a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('arXiv paper'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like arxiv:search by focusing on direct ID-based retrieval rather than searching.

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 provides clear context on when to use the default mode vs. the full-text mode triggered by `section` or `save_path`. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the distinction from search tools is implicit and the behavior for different parameter combinations is well explained.

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