Get Zotero item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a meaningful nuance — 'indexed full text' discloses that fulltext is only available when indexed — but does not mention return format, error behavior, or how the key is obtained. No contradiction with annotations; 'Read-only' aligns with readOnlyHint=true.

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?

Two sentences of roughly 15 words, with the core action front-loaded. The only waste is the standalone 'Read-only,' which duplicates readOnlyHint=true already present in the annotations — minor redundancy in an otherwise tight definition.

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 simple read-only fetch tool, the description covers the essentials: what is fetched, optional inclusions, and safety. But with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, it could have noted expected return shape or key format. Adequate for the tool's low complexity, yet gaps remain.

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 must compensate. It partially does: 'optionally its children or indexed full text' maps directly to the `include` parameter's enum values and adds the 'indexed' nuance. However, the required `key` parameter is left implicit — its format and origin are unexplained, and `include` behavior (e.g., whether inclusions are additive) is not detailed.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get one Zotero item') with clear scoping ('optionally its children or indexed full text'). The word 'one' distinguishes it from sibling tools like zotero_search_items and zotero_get_collection_items, which retrieve multiple items, and the optional children/fulltext detail separates it from zotero_get_item_notes.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: 'Get one Zotero item' suggests fetching a single item by key, and the children/fulltext options hint at when related data is needed. However, no sibling alternative is named (e.g., 'to search by query, use zotero_search_items') and no when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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