get_magic_item_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what details are included (e.g., properties, rarity, attunement), whether it requires authentication, or how it handles errors (e.g., if the item name is invalid). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information') without any wasted words. It directly addresses what the tool does, making it easy 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 complexity of retrieving game data and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., JSON structure, included fields), potential limitations (e.g., only official D&D items), or error handling. This leaves the agent under-informed for a tool that likely returns rich data.

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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'item_name' clearly documented as 'The name of the magic item to get details for.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as formatting examples or case sensitivity. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific D&D 5E magic item'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_magic_items' (which likely returns multiple items) or 'unified_search' (which might include magic items among other things), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_magic_items' for broader searches or 'unified_search' for cross-resource queries, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing the exact item name. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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