get_work_detailsRetrieve one complete public bibliographic record by Noodle work identifier. Results are for literature discovery and professional review, not diagnosis or treatment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| work_id | Yes | Canonical Noodle Literature Corpus work identifier. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| publication | Yes | ||
| usage_boundary | Yes | ||
| contract_version | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by specifying the record is 'complete' and 'public', and by adding the non-diagnostic disclaimer—context beyond the structured fields.
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?
Two sentences with no redundancy; the primary action and scope are front-loaded, followed by a brief application note. Every sentence 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?
With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is complete for the tool's simple purpose. The only gap is lack of sibling differentiation, but given low complexity and available structured data, the provided text is sufficient.
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 coverage is 100% (the lone work_id parameter has a clear description: 'Canonical Noodle Literature Corpus work identifier'). The tool description adds no new semantics for the parameter, just restates the identifier concept—appropriate given high coverage, but not additive.
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 a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('one complete public bibliographic record') keyed by a Noodle work identifier. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_publication_details, but the single-record-by-ID focus is unambiguous.
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 description includes a usage disclaimer ('for literature discovery and professional review, not diagnosis or treatment') which implies appropriate contexts, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings or when not to use it. The use case is only implied.
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.
The search and corpus tools are clearly distinct, and the two detail and two neighborhood tools are parallel but differentiated by identifier type (PMID vs. Noodle work ID). The main ambiguity is that get_publication_details and get_work_details both retrieve full records, so agents must understand which identifier they have. support_helena is unrelated but unambiguously separated.
Most tools follow a consistent snake_case get_<resource>_<scope> pattern, and search_biomedical_literature fits the retrieval theme. support_helena is a minor outlier because it uses a different action verb and target, but it does not break the overall naming style.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a read-only literature discovery server: corpus summary, semantic search, two lookup modes, two neighborhood exploration modes, and one support action. The count feels intentional and each tool serves a distinct part of the discovery workflow.
The read-only discovery surface is largely complete with corpus metadata, search, detailed record retrieval, and neighborhood exploration. A minor gap is that direct retrieval is only by PMID or Noodle work ID, not by DOI/PMCID, though search can serve as a workaround.