Returns the four-paper inhalation safety threshold lineage — the academic record supporting the 10% empirical ceiling for safe hydrogen inhalation and the non-recommendation of high-concentration devices. Use when the user asks for the academic basis of the safety guidance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds contextual detail about what the lineage includes, going beyond annotations without contradicting them.
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 two sentences, each serving a purpose: one explains what is returned and the other gives usage guidance. No redundant or filler content.
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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose and usage. The only gap is the undocumented lang parameter, but overall it is complete enough for selection and invocation.
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 schema has one optional lang parameter with an enum, but the description does not mention it at all (0% coverage). Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it doesn't, leaving the parameter's purpose unstated. The enum values (ja/en) give a hint, but fail to fully clarify.
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 'Returns the four-paper inhalation safety threshold lineage' and provides specific content details (10% empirical ceiling, non-recommendation). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_paper and search_h2_papers.
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 an explicit usage trigger: 'Use when the user asks for the academic basis of the safety guidance.' While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate from siblings.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct, but get_safety_notes overlaps with get_accident_cases and get_lineage since it aggregates those topics. Descriptions clarify the boundaries, so confusion is unlikely, but an agent might initially mis-select when asked about a specific safety aspect.
All tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_* for retrieval, search_* for search). The consistent prefix and noun structure make the tool names predictable and easy to navigate.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a specialized literature database. Each tool covers a specific aspect of retrieval or safety guidance, and none feel redundant or extraneous.
The tool set covers the full read-only lifecycle: search, individual paper retrieval, safety detail views, accident cases, lineage, and aggregated topic views. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of querying molecular hydrogen medical literature.