get_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the return value structure (dict with abstract, authors, etc.) but does not disclose error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Parameters, Returns) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is concise at two short paragraphs, though the parameter description could be integrated into the first sentence.

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 parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it states the input and describes the output as a dict with key fields. It is mostly complete, though it lacks mention of potential errors.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving the parameter undocumented. The description compensates by stating the single parameter is the numeric Zenodo record ID, adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's type and title.

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 retrieves complete metadata for a Zenodo record. The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'metadata' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_records or related_records, which also deal with record data.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as search_records, latest_version, or cite_record might be more appropriate for specific tasks, but the description offers no criteria for selection.

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