Get item

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description correctly spends its words on what the read returns: file paths, codec, and size for movies, and watch progress ratios for shows. That return-shape disclosure is genuinely additive given no output schema exists, though error behavior for an unknown ratingKey is unstated.

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, each carrying distinct information — the first establishes scope and input, the second splits return content by item type. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 one-parameter read tool whose annotations fully declare the safety profile, the description covers the essential return-content variation between movies and shows. The remaining gap is how a caller obtains a valid ratingKey, which is a real friction point in a 22-tool library where ids come from elsewhere.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. It confirms ratingKey identifies exactly one item and that it accepts any media kind, but never explains the key's origin or format (the schema's ^\d+$ pattern is the only format hint) or that it must be exact.

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 and resource ("Full metadata for one item by ratingKey") and scopes it to "any kind", which helps separate it from narrow siblings like get_children, get_extras, and library_stats. It stops short of naming a sibling outright, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus search, list_media, get_children, or person_credits. The only implicit guidance is that the caller must already hold a ratingKey, but the description never says to obtain one via search first or what happens when an id is stale.

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