read_arxiv_paper

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully explain behavior. It mentions downloading and extracting text but does not clarify scope of 'first pages' or potential costs like rate limits, caching, or authentication needs.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the key actions. It is concise but could benefit from bullet points or structure for easier parsing.

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 three parameters and existence of an output schema, the description covers the overall purpose but omits parameter details and usage context relative to siblings. It is minimally complete for a read action with simple parameters.

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%, and the description offers no parameter-specific details. The mention of 'first pages' hints at max_pages but does not explain any parameter's syntax or constraints, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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's actions: download PDF, extract text from first pages, and return a reading pack. It distinguishes from sibling tools like download_arxiv_pdf (which only downloads) and get_arxiv_paper (which likely returns metadata).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like download_arxiv_pdf or search_arxiv. Lacks prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer proper usage.

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