get_work

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the retrieval action and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, rate limits, or data completeness expectations. This is a significant gap given the lack of annotation support.

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 sentence that front-loads the essential purpose. Every word is informational and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

While the core function is clear, the tool has four parameters and multiple sibling tools. The description does not explain how optional parameters affect behavior, nor does it provide usage context or contrast with related tools. For a tool with moderate complexity and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 four parameters with zero coverage in the description. Only 'identifier' is implicitly explained via the phrase 'by identifier'; sources, source_modes, and identifier_type are entirely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'get' and resource 'work', and enumerates identifier types (DOI, PMID, PMCID, arXiv), which clearly defines the tool's scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like convert_identifiers or resolve_identifiers that focus on identifier mapping rather than retrieving the full work record.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as resolve_identifiers or convert_identifiers. It implies usage when an identifier is at hand but does not state exclusions or mention alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the correct choice.

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