trove_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 of behavioral disclosure, but it offers almost nothing beyond the basic action. It does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements (api_key is optional), return format, or any side effects. For a read operation, it lacks reassurance or constraints.

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 very short—a single sentence. While concise, it is under-specified for a tool with two parameters and no other documentation. It could be expanded slightly to add clarity without becoming verbose, but it is not overly long.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should clarify what a 'Trove work' is and what the response will contain. It does not differentiate from the sibling 'trove_newspaper_article', leaving ambiguity about whether this tool also returns articles or other content. The description is insufficient for the agent to understand the tool's full scope.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description adds no explanation for 'id' (what type of ID? format?) or 'api_key' (where to obtain it?). This is a significant gap, as the agent has no context to correctly populate the parameters.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('a specific Trove work by ID'), distinguishing it from its sibling 'trove_search' but not from 'trove_newspaper_article'. It is specific about the input method (by ID), so it is not a tautology.

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 like 'trove_search' or 'trove_newspaper_article'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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