runeberg_get_work_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly communicates a read-only 'get' operation and what the result will contain. It does not disclose potential error behavior or rate limits, but for a simple retrieval tool this is not a major gap.

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 two sentences plus a parameter block with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the parameter explanation is immediately actionable.

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?

With only one required parameter and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. The only missing context is a brief nod to the sibling tools or how to obtain a valid work_slug, but that is a minor omission for this low-complexity tool.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining work_slug as 'The work identifier' and giving four concrete examples. This tells the agent exactly what value to supply and what form it takes.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('a work in Project Runeberg'), and the exact information returned (metadata, publication details, table of contents/chapter list). This makes it easy to distinguish from the sibling tools runeberg_search and runeberg_read_page.

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 use case is implied: after you already have a work_slug, this tool fetches overview information. However, the description does not explicitly contrast this with searching for works or reading pages, so the agent must infer when to select this tool over its siblings.

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