item_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the read returns full untruncated detail, which is a useful behavioral trait, but it does not mention error behavior, authentication/authorization needs, or other side effects. For a simple read operation, this is minimal disclosure, so a score of 2 is appropriate.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It communicates the core purpose immediately and efficiently.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and a key return characteristic (untruncated detail). However, it lacks information about possible errors, how to find the id if unknown, and the structure of the returned item. This makes it minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 schema has one parameter 'id' with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, the description does not explain what 'id' refers to, its format, or any constraints beyond the schema's minLength:1. No additional meaning is added, leaving the agent to infer that id identifies the item.

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 'Read' and resource 'one item', and adds 'full untruncated detail' which distinguishes it from other item operations like item_add, item_update, and from list/search tools. It clearly states the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 implies this tool is for reading a single item when full detail is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like search or other getters, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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