view_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'View' implies a read-only operation, and 'optionally returning a specific field' describes output behavior. However, it does not address edge cases like selector precedence, behavior when no matching item exists, or any permission requirements, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and omits all unnecessary detail. Every phrase earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand instantly.

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?

The tool has 8 optional parameters and no output schema, and the description leaves unclear how selectors should be combined to target an item. It also does not describe what the response looks like beyond a possibly specific field. The schema compensates for parameter details, but the selector interaction and return behavior remain under-specified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful conceptual grouping ('URI or selectors') and explains the 'field' parameter's purpose, but it does not add semantics about how multiple selectors combine or which ones are sufficient. It does not go beyond the schema's own 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?

The description states a specific verb ('View'), a clear resource ('item'), and the singular scope ('a specific item') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_items or search_items. Naming 'by URI or selectors' further clarifies the access mechanism. It is immediately clear what this tool does.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_items or search_items, and does not mention prerequisites or exclusion cases. An agent is not told how to identify an item before calling, or which selector combinations are valid. This is a notable gap.

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