get_article_figures

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

Describes the main behavior (extracting figures, returning metadata) and optional features (include_subfigures, include_tables). Does not explicitly state read-only nature or disclose potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, article access restrictions). Since no annotations are present, more transparency would be beneficial.

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?

Well-structured with a concise summary, parameter details, return description, and examples. No redundant information; each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Covers main functionality, parameter flexibility, and return structure. Lacks explanation for the output_format parameter and any error conditions or limitations (e.g., network requirements). Given the 6 parameters and no annotations, it is near-complete but has minor gaps.

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?

Adds meaning for identifier (auto-detect), pmcid (direct ID), pmid (PMC requirement), and boolean parameters (include_subfigures, include_tables). However, output_format is not explained in the description despite being present in the schema. With 0% schema coverage, the description should cover all parameters.

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 gets structured figure metadata and PDF links from a PMC Open Access article, specifying the returned elements (label, caption, image URL). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like get_fulltext or analyze_figure_for_search.

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?

Provides clear input options (identifier, pmcid, pmid) with prerequisites for pmid (article must be in PMC). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like get_fulltext.

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