lit_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It states a key trait: 'Does not download anything', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, nor does it mention potential network access, rate limits, or error behavior. The single behavioral note is helpful 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and output, followed by a brief, important behavioral caveat. There is no redundancy or fluff; every clause adds value.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-oriented tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential aspects: what the identifier can be, what it returns, and that it does not download. It omits edge-case behaviors (e.g., ambiguous titles, failure handling) but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema.

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 only defines a single 'identifier' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by specifying that the identifier can be a DOI, PMID, PMCID, or title, giving the agent crucial information about accepted input formats that the schema lacks.

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 action ('Resolve') and the resource (DOI, PMID, PMCID, or title) plus the output (full metadata and legal routes to full text). The phrase 'Does not download anything' helps distinguish it from likely siblings like lit_fetch or lit_request_copy, making its scope unmistakable.

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 by noting it does not download content, suggesting other tools for downloading, but it does not name any alternatives or provide explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance. The intent is inferable but not directly stated.

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