aps_get_item_details

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

The description adds behavioral context by stating the response is 'Much smaller than the raw JSON:API response', indicating a trimmed-down output. Although it lacks explicit safety or authorization details, the name 'get' and the description imply a read-only operation. With no annotations provided, this provides useful behavioral insight beyond the tool name.

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 short sentences front-load the purpose and immediately follow with usage advice and a comparison. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return fields, use case, and performance (smaller response). It does not detail error conditions or authentication, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete for quick file lookups.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'item_id from a folder listing' but does not add extra semantic meaning or format guidance for either parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get summarised metadata' and clearly identifies the resource as a single file/item, listing the returned attributes (name, type, size, version number, dates). It distinguishes itself from the raw JSON:API response by noting its smaller size, and the context of 'when you already have the item_id from a folder listing' differentiates it from sibling tools like aps_get_folder_contents.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use for quick file lookups when you already have the item_id from a folder listing.' This implies not to use for full details or when you need raw API data, providing clear directives and an implicit alternative.

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