download_zenodo

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 downloading a PDF and returning a path, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling (e.g., if paper_id is invalid), file naming conventions, or network/timeout behavior. For a download operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then lists arguments and returns in a formatted way. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 description coverage, but an output schema exists (returns str path), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameters adequately but misses behavioral context like error conditions or prerequisites. The output schema handles return values, so that's not needed in the description.

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' as the Zenodo identifier and 'save_path' as the directory with a default. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., paper_id structure).

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's purpose: 'Download PDF for a paper from Zenodo.' This specifies the verb (download), resource (PDF for a paper), and source (Zenodo). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'read_zenodo_paper' or other download tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 like 'download_arxiv', 'download_biorxiv', and 'read_zenodo_paper', there's no indication of when Zenodo is the appropriate source or when downloading vs. reading is preferred. Only basic parameter defaults are mentioned.

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