get_item_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Return a practical properties snapshot' without indicating whether the operation is read-only, what happens if items are missing, performance implications, or any side effects. The behavior is effectively undisclosed.

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?

While the description is a single short sentence, it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It conveys no more than the tool name already implies, which is wasteful for an agent trying to understand the tool's behavior.

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 two optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling set, the description is drastically insufficient. It does not explain the nature of 'items', the output format, when items are 'selected', or how document_id affects results. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly from this description alone.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the parameters (`item_ids`, `document_id`) at all. It gives no hint of what these inputs mean, how they interact, or which combinations are valid. It completely fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses a clear verb ('Return') and identifies a resource ('properties snapshot for selected items'), but 'items' is ambiguous — it could refer to sketch entities, features, or document elements. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_items' or 'inspect_sketch_entity', which likely have overlapping scopes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No conditions, exclusions, or context are provided. The agent has no basis to choose this over 'get_items', 'inspect_sketch_entity', or other read-oriented tools.

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