authoring-get-item

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that reads hit the authoring/master database so unpublished content is visible, which is a genuine semantic trait. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the added visibility nuance is substantive.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the distinguishing database behavior, then the input constraint. No filler; every sentence carries information.

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 7-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, and database semantics, and all parameters are fully documented in the schema. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only minor room to say more about defaulting behavior or error cases.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a real constraint not enforced by the schema: 'Supply exactly one of id or path'. That mutual-exclusivity rule genuinely supplements the per-parameter descriptions.

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 ('Reads a Sitecore item by ID or path') and describes the return payload (identity, template, field values). It also differentiates from siblings by noting it reads the authoring database 'unlike the Edge query tools', letting an agent distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Clear context for when to use it: reads the authoring database so unpublished content is visible, contrasted against the Edge query tools. It stops short of naming specific sibling alternatives (e.g. item-service-get-item, authoring-get-media-item) or stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it is strong but not fully routing.

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