item_get

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

The description includes the annotation '（只读）' (read-only), which is a useful behavioral hint, but with no annotations provided, it carries the full burden of disclosure. It does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior (e.g., item not found), rate limits, or any other side effects. The single read-only note is insufficient context for an agent to anticipate tool behavior fully.

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, concise sentence that directly communicates purpose and the read-only nature. It is front-loaded and contains no filler words, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple nature of the tool (one parameter, output schema exists) the description covers basic purpose, but lacks usage guidance and parameter context. The output schema presumably handles return values, but the description still leaves gaps around when to use the tool and what the item_id parameter means, making it minimally adequate but not complete.

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 input schema has only one parameter, item_id, but the description does not elaborate on what this ID represents, how to obtain it, or any validation rules. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the parameter's name.

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 states the tool's function: querying Xianyu item details (read-only). The verb '查询' (query) plus resource '商品详情' (item details) makes the purpose explicit. It also distinguishes from siblings like item_delete, item_publish, and item_list by specifying a read-only detail retrieval.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as item_view or item_list. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. Users are left to infer usage from the name alone.

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