get_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does meaningfully disclose that child content is returned only as a summary, that the tool works across personal and group/shared libraries, and that the response's library_id identifies the owning library. It does not cover error/edge cases or auth, but the read-only nature is clear from the wording.

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 dense sentences front-load the core action and then add return-scope and library-scope details. The parenthetical is slightly long, but every clause contributes behavior or routing value; there is no filler.

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 metadata fetch with no output schema, the description covers what the response contains, what it deliberately omits, how library ownership is conveyed, and which sibling tools to use next. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 provides only the parameter name and type with zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds that the parameter selects exactly one item and that the item may live in any library, with library_id in the response identifying the library. It does not explain the item_key format, but for a single self-describing required parameter this is adequate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get full metadata for one item') and enumerates exactly what is included: bibliographic fields, creators, tags, collections, abstract, and a summary of child notes and attachments. It also distinguishes itself from sibling get_item_fulltext / get_item_notes / get_item_annotations by framing them as next steps rather than the metadata call.

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?

It clearly implies this tool is for retrieving a single item's metadata rather than listing or searching, and it adds explicit follow-up routing to fulltext/notes/annotations tools. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions or compare against list_items/search_metadata, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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