browse_recent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently warns that many papers may lack announced_date, suggests a fallback, and details the response shape differences based on profile_slug presence (including which fields are null without it and the inclusion of ranker_snapshot with it). This is a thorough disclosure of what the tool returns and under what conditions.

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 detailed but well-organized: it opens with the core purpose, then provides parameter guidance, then describes the response shape. Each sentence adds value, and the most critical usage advice (time_basis fallback) is placed early. It is longer than a one-liner, but the complexity of the tool justifies the length. No filler or redundancy is present.

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 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: the main purpose, the time_basis nuance, the profile_slug effect, and the response structure. It does not explain pagination (cursor, page_size) or valid category values, but these are standard and inferable. The description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly in most scenarios, though edge cases like pagination are not explicitly addressed.

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 adds meaning to time_basis (announced, submitted, updated) and profile_slug (profile-ranked results with explanations), and clarifies the effect on the response. However, it does not explain days, cursor, page_size, or the format of category beyond 'optionally filtered'. These parameters are left to inference from names and defaults. The description partially compensates for the schema gap but not completely.

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 verb 'browse' and the resource 'recently announced arXiv papers' with an optional category filter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_papers and find_related_papers, which serve different retrieval needs. The title 'browse_recent' is reinforced, but the description goes beyond a tautology by specifying the arXiv scope and the optional filtering.

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 explicit guidance on when to use time_basis (announced vs submitted vs updated) and includes a practical fallback if results are empty with the default. It also explains the conditional use of profile_slug to get ranked results with explanations. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the context clearly implies that this is for browsing recent papers, not searching or related-paper lookups. The usage advice is actionable and specific.

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