Shape get item fds props

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the "Item library" framing and that a registered item is required — useful but thin, with no mention of failure behavior for an unknown/unregistered ID.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; "Item library:" acts as a useful domain prefix rather than waste. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so size is not the problem.

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 getter with no output schema, the description should at least hint at what is returned and how to obtain the item_id. "FDS properties and metadata" gestures at the return payload, but the ID provenance and error cases for a non-existent item are absent.

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?

The single required parameter item_id has 0% schema description coverage (type string only), so the description carries the burden and only weakly compensates by saying the item is "registered" — it never states the ID's format or that it comes from shape_register_item. Syntax and provenance of the identifier remain undocumented.

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 (read) and resource (FDS properties and metadata of a registered item) in the first sentence. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling shape_set_item_fds_props via "read" vs writing, but never names or explicitly distinguishes the counterpart, so it lands just short of a 5.

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 is implied: this is the inspection counterpart to registering/setting an item (shape_register_item, shape_set_item_fds_props exist as siblings). No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions are given, so the agent must infer that an item must already be registered before calling.

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