Get Item Details

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds minimal context ('full details') but does not clarify behavior for missing keys or error handling. It aligns with the annotations without contradiction.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The Args block is slightly redundant with the schema but structured and short. No wasted sentences, though the parameter documentation is minimal.

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 tool with one parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks explicit error behavior but is otherwise complete. A note contrasting with get_item_fulltext would have pushed it higher.

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%, and the description's 'Args' section merely restates the parameter name and a vague explanation ('The Zotero item key') without adding format, example, or constraints. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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') and clearly identifies the resource ('Zotero item') and scope ('full details') along with the method ('by its key'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_item_fulltext (partial content) and get_annotations.

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 implicitly conveys usage when full item metadata is needed, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. For example, it does not contrast with get_item_fulltext or search_library. The context is clear but guidance is not explicit.

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