get_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It only states that it queries by ID and returns complete info, but does not mention error behavior, permissions, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied by 'get' but not explicitly disclosed.

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 extremely concise, two short sentences, with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and includes the key parameter usage.

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 single-parameter get tool, the description covers the basics but lacks details about return format, error handling, and use cases. Without an output schema or annotations, the agent must infer these. It is adequate 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with one required 'id' parameter described as '物品ID'. The description adds the context that the ID is used for querying, but this aligns with the schema. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond the schema.

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 retrieves detailed item information using the item ID. It uses a specific verb ('获取' / get) and resource ('物品详细信息' / item details), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_item or query_items.

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 usage for a single item lookup by ID but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like query_items or scan_add_item. It does not state when to prefer this over alternatives, so the usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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