download_arxiv

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It lacks behavioral details such as network requirements, error handling (e.g., invalid paper IDs), file overwriting behavior, or rate limits. The description does not contradict annotations (none exist), but it fails to disclose important operational traits.

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 efficiently structured with a brief purpose statement followed by clearly labeled sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and key information is front-loaded. The formatting enhances readability without unnecessary verbosity.

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 annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., network dependencies, errors). For a download tool with potential complexities, more context would be beneficial.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'paper_id' is explained with an example format ('e.g., '2106.12345''), and 'save_path' specifies the default directory. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could note constraints like path validity.

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 specific action ('Download PDF') and resource ('of an arXiv paper'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'read_arxiv_paper' (which likely reads content without downloading) and 'search_arxiv' (which searches rather than downloads). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 alternatives like 'download_with_fallback' or 'download_scihub', nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description assumes the user knows this is the correct tool for arXiv PDFs without contextual comparison.

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