get_yek_work_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the basic read-only behavior (returns a record) but does not mention potential errors, permissions, rate limits, or edge cases. For a simple getter, this is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, output schema present), so the description is largely sufficient. It explains the core function and result. However, it lacks context about how this tool relates to siblings or when to choose it, which is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, and there is one parameter (work_id). The description adds meaning by implying work_id is the identifier for the single work whose record is returned, but it does not elaborate on format, constraints, or examples. Some semantic value is added.

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's action: 'returns the full catalog record of a single work' (Tek bir eserin tam katalog kaydını döndürür). It uses a specific verb (returns) and resource (full catalog record) and distinguishes from siblings like search_yek_works and list_yek_libraries.

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?

Usage is implied: given a work_id, this retrieves the full record. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., search_yek_works) or provide any exclusions. No clear when-to-use guidance beyond the obvious.

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