zotero_get_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Fetch' implies a non-mutating read, and the description adds genuinely useful output traits not inferable from the schema: notes are returned as plain text and attachment file paths are included. It does not discuss error behavior or auth prerequisites, but those are minor for a read-focused tool.

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 with no filler. The first sentence fronts the action, resource, and output contents; the second supplies the use case. The enumerated list is dense but scannable and every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the major output components (metadata, creators, tags, collections, notes as text, attachment paths), so an agent knows what to expect. The input schema fully documents all parameters and the description supplies a workflow cue; missing details like error behavior and authentication are minor but not zero.

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 100%, so the schema already documents keys, source, and library semantics. The description adds little beyond reusing 'item key' and providing a workflow hint; it doesn't deepen parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Fetch'), identifies the resource ('complete record for one or more Zotero items by item key'), and enumerates the scope: metadata, creators, tags, collections, notes, and attachment file paths. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from zotero_search by positioning this tool as the follow-up for full details.

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?

It gives a concrete trigger: 'Use after zotero_search when you need abstracts, DOIs, notes or the PDF path.' This clearly states when the tool is valuable. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools like zotero_attachments, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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