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 it does so well: it discloses the default output (metadata + abstract), the conditional full-text behavior triggered by section or save_path, the ~2024+ HTML availability constraint, and the fallback for older papers. This is unusually transparent about mode-dependent behavior.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose is front-loaded, the default behavior is stated, and the conditional/fallback behavior follows logically. Every sentence contributes necessary information.

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 simple three-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the main use, optional parameter effects, an important availability boundary, and the fallback result. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and predict what will happen.

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% and the schema already documents id, section, and save_path well. The description adds value by explaining the default when no optional parameters are provided and by tying section/save_path to full-text HTML fetching, including the availability caveat.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve an arXiv paper by ID,' and gives a concrete ID example. This clearly distinguishes the tool from arxiv_search, which would be used to discover papers rather than fetch a known one.

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 establishes that this tool is for known arXiv IDs ('by ID'), which gives clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name arxiv_search as the alternative for finding papers or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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