zotero_get_item_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation by saying 'get', but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, required permissions, or error handling. For a metadata retrieval tool, more disclosure (e.g., 'read-only, no side effects') is expected.

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 efficient with four sentences, each adding value: main purpose, return fields, alternative tools, and a usage tip. No redundant or filler content. Could be slightly tighter by removing the tip, but acceptable.

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 has two parameters (one optional), no enums, and an output schema exists, the description covers the primary use case and return format. However, it omits details about the optional parameter (include_bibtex), input assumptions (valid item_key), and any constraints like authentication or rate limits. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but 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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The description mentions return fields (title, authors, etc.) but does not explain the 'include_bibtex' boolean parameter. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema for the 'item_key' parameter by implying it identifies the item. This is insufficient for complete parameter understanding.

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 specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'complete bibliographic metadata', and distinguishes from sibling tools by naming alternatives for annotations (get_item_children) and full text (get_item_fulltext). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 this tool (for metadata) and when to use alternatives (annotations: get_item_children; full text: get_item_fulltext). Also includes a tip for structured literature reviews, advising against ad-hoc analysis. No gaps.

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