get_paper_section

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add a genuine behavioral rationale — retrieving a single section avoids blowing the context window — but says nothing about what actually comes back (text? LaTeX source? formatting) or what happens if the section path does not match. Adequate but with clear gaps for an unannotated read tool.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the prerequisite placed last where it is most actionable. Every sentence contributes either scope, a trigger condition, or a dependency.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, triggers, and the required prerequisite workflow. The main omission is any indication of the returned content's form, which an agent would need given there is no output schema.

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%, so both parameters, including the verbatim-title and 'Section > Subsection' conventions, are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the ordering hint for section_path via the list_paper_sections reference, which is a marginal gain over baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get a specific section of an arXiv paper.' The scope (one section, not the whole paper) is explicit and clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_paper_sections and get_paper_abstract. The only soft spot is 'by its title,' which is immediately disambiguated as the section title rather than the paper title.

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?

Gives two concrete trigger conditions (paper too long for context, user wants a particular section) and an explicit prerequisite: 'Use list_paper_sections first.' It does not state when not to use it (e.g., for an overview, use get_paper_abstract), so the exclusion side of the guidance is missing.

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