get_work

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is a read operation (get) and describes return content, but does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. The indication of read-only behavior is implicit.

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 extremely concise, two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose and outputs, the second explains the parameter. Every part 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?

Given the simple interface (one parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what the tool does and what it returns. It is sufficiently complete for a 'get by ID' operation, though error handling or edge cases are not discussed.

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 0%, but the description's second sentence explains the 'work_id' parameter in detail: it is a numeric AO3 work ID from search results or URLs, providing essential usage context beyond the schema's type definition.

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 the full metadata card for a single work, listing specific content (tags, stats, summary, series info). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'read_works' (multiple works) and 'get_work_text' (text only).

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 implies when to use this tool (when needing comprehensive metadata for one work) and contrasts with sibling names that suggest different scopes. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives.

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