download_iacr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the download action and default save path but omits critical behavioral details like error handling (e.g., invalid paper IDs), network dependencies, file overwriting, or authentication needs. This is inadequate for a tool that performs external operations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for args and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (implied by 'Returns'), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and output but lacks behavioral transparency for a download operation. The output schema handles return values, but more context on errors or side effects is needed.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'paper_id' with an example format and 'save_path' with its default value. It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could detail path validation or paper ID constraints more.

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 ('IACR ePrint paper'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'read_iacr_paper' (which likely reads content) and 'search_iacr' (which searches). It precisely identifies the tool's function without redundancy.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'download_arxiv', 'read_iacr_paper'), it lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on naming alone.

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