get_paper_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions 'precise interpretation of mathematical expressions' as a rationale but omits behavioral details like authentication, rate limits, or error handling.

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?

Single sentence with front-loaded recommendation. No wasted words, though it could have a slightly more structured format (e.g., separating action from rationale).

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 low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers purpose and context. However, it lacks details on return format (e.g., raw LaTeX text), which would improve completeness.

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?

With 100% schema coverage (arxiv_id described in schema), the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The parameter is self-explanatory, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches the full LaTeX source of an arXiv paper, using specific verb 'fetch' and resource 'full LaTeX source'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_paper_abstract and get_paper_section by focusing on complete source.

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 phrase 'Recommended default' implies a usage context and contrasts with other tools for different needs (abstract, sections). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide exclusions.

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