common-get-item-reference

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description does not need to restate that this is a safe read. It adds a mild scope hint ('where it is used throughout the system') but says nothing about permissions, cost, or how the 'full' diagnostic mode behaves, leaving meaningful gaps given the annotations carry only safety.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the scope clarification second. No wasted text, though the trailing clause slightly overlaps with the word 'references'.

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 tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the core information is present. The notable omission is any differentiation from the closely related referrer tools, which is exactly the context an agent needs to choose correctly.

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%, with id/path, full, fields, version, database, and language all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that baseline, so a 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?

States a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('item references for a Sitecore item') and clarifies intent with 'showing where it is used throughout the system'. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling common-get-item-referrer, leaving the agent unable to tell the two apart from the description alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as common-get-item-referrer or common-update-item-referrer. The usage is only implied by the verb, and the choice of id vs path is left entirely to the schema.

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