Get complete details of a specific artwork by name, including curatorial essence, ideal spaces, vibrational frequency, signature phrase, pricing, and technical specs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Artwork name or partial name (e.g., "Pure White Rouge", "Marea De Presencia", "Sara") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lists the specific attributes returned, which helps set expectations. However, it doesn't clarify how partial name matches are handled (e.g., multiple results) or whether the operation is strictly read-only, which is important since there are no annotations.
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, front-loaded with the primary action, no filler. Every word earns its place.
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 simple single-parameter lookup, the description covers the output fields and the lookup mechanism. The lack of an output schema and annotations means the description carries weight, and it does a good job, though partial-match behavior remains unclear.
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?
The only parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema with examples. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond restating that lookup is by name, so it doesn't exceed the 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?
The description clearly states it retrieves complete details for a specific artwork by name, listing the specific types of details returned. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_artworks (search) and browse_collections (browse) without ambiguity.
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 'by name' and the inclusion of partial name matching provide clear context for when to use this tool—when the agent has an artwork identifier. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: browsing collections, overview, artwork details, space recommendations, inquiries, and filtered search. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., browse_collections, search_artworks), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for an art catalog server, covering essential operations without being too sparse or excessive.
The tools cover browsing, searching, detailed viewing, recommendations, and purchasing inquiries, leaving no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of a curator catalog.
