get_item

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns full details including text content, which conveys a read-only fetch. However, it does not mention behavior for missing IDs, error responses, or any rate limits or authentication requirements.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core action and return value without superfluous words. It is immediately scannable and appropriately sized.

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 fetch tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies what is returned and covers multiple item types, though 'full details' is slightly vague and no error handling is mentioned.

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 already fully documents the single 'id' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond saying 'by ID', which is already represented in 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 gets any Hacker News item by ID, covering stories, comments, jobs, and polls. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_stories, get_comments, and search, which operate on collections or specific types.

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 usage context is clear: use when you have a specific item ID and want the full item. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the ID-based scope is a clear differentiator from siblings that list or search.

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