get_work

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: content comes from the selected version, include_resources aggregates public repositories across versions by default, view='context' versus view='full' return different payloads, and figure_limit has a server default of 3 with a special 0 behavior that preserves the figures_truncated signal. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core operation and then uses short, purposeful paragraphs for the Work concept, related tool guidance, and parameter semantics. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is proportionate to the complexity of the parameters.

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 read-only retrieval tool with an output schema already provided, the description covers input provenance, the Work/version model, the alternative get_paper path, and all conditional view behaviors. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It successfully does so: work_id_or_url comes from search, view controls context vs full content, include_resources defaults to true and can be disabled, and figure_limit is context-only with a server default of 3 and a 0-suppressions behavior.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a Lacuna Work by Work ID or URL'), and the description defines what a Work is and how it relates to versions. It also distinguishes itself from get_paper by directing paper-level inspection to that sibling.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: it states that work IDs or URLs come from search and that get_paper should be used with a version's artifact_id to inspect a paper. It also prescribes conditions for choosing view variants, include_resources, and figure_limit, so the agent knows when to use or avoid certain options.

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