get_paper_abstract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a safe, read-only operation without side effects. However, it does not disclose behavior on invalid arxiv_ids or mention any API rate limits or authentication, which would be helpful. Still, the purpose is simple and well-communicated.

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 two sentences: one stating the core function and one specifying usage context. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff. It is compact and front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter meaning. It is complete for the given complexity.

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 100% (the parameter 'arxiv_id' is described with an example). The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, hitting the baseline. No further parameter details are necessary for this simple tool.

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 explicitly states it retrieves 'just the abstract of an arXiv paper', specifying the resource (arXiv paper) and scope (abstract only). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_paper_section by emphasizing 'just the abstract' and its use case as a quick preview.

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 clear guidance on when to use ('quick preview when the user hasn't read the paper yet') and when not to use ('not when they provide an arXiv ID to discuss a paper'). This contrasts with sibling tools that likely focus on sections or prompts.

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