provider-get-item

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that - no note that exactly one identifier must be supplied, no warning about the cost of the full object graph, no database/language default behavior - even though the schema hints at several of these.

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 no filler; the resource and lookup modalities come first and nothing is wasted.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and many near-duplicate siblings, the description is minimally adequate: the schema carries the parameter burden, but the lack of sibling routing and of the exactly-one-identifier constraint leaves real gaps.

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 every parameter (including the mutually exclusive id/uri/path/query set and the 'full' cost warning) is already documented. The description's restatement of the four lookup forms adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Sitecore item) and enumerates the accepted lookup forms (path, ID, query, URI), so the agent knows what the tool returns. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling getters (item-service-get-item, authoring-get-item, common-get-item-field, etc.), which is exactly where an agent would need help.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the large family of get-item tools. The only usage signal is implicit in the list of identifier forms.

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