zotero_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: that Markdown is the default format and includes local PDF paths, and that JSON output is 'complete.' This gives the agent a better sense of what each output format looks like and the default behavior.

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?

The description is two sentences long and packs essential information: the core action, the three output formats, the default, and a key detail about the default (PDF paths). There is no redundancy or filler. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one item, one optional format parameter), the description covers the core functionality, default behavior, and output format options. It is a read-only operation with strong annotations and an output schema, so the description need not elaborate return values or error handling. The description is complete for the tool's scope.

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 explains the 'format' parameter by listing the three possible values (markdown, json, bibtex) and identifies markdown as the default. However, it does not explain the 'key' parameter beyond implying it identifies a single Zotero item. The description adds some meaning for the format field but leaves the key field underspecified, so a 3 is suitable.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Show one Zotero item as readable metadata, complete JSON, or a Better BibTeX export.' The verb 'show' plus the resource 'one Zotero item' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like zotero_search (which searches) or zotero_children (which gets child items). The mention of specific output formats further clarifies its role.

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?

The description provides clear context: use this tool when you need to display a single Zotero item in a chosen format. The word 'one' implicitly excludes cases requiring multiple items, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This qualifies as clear context without exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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