get_project_item_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It lists returned information but does not disclose non-obvious behaviors like read-only nature, error conditions, or performance implications. The name suggests a safe get operation, but this is not confirmed.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and what information it returns, with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and provides a useful list of attributes.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool without an output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about the returned data. It covers the main expected fields, though it omits the return structure (e.g., dictionary). This is adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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 single parameter 'item_id' is described as 'Node ID or name of the project item', adding clarity beyond the schema's 'Node ID or name'. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds moderate value by clarifying acceptable formats.

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 retrieves detailed information about a project item, and lists the specific attributes (media path, resolution, etc.), making its purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from similar tools like get_item_info by indicating it provides more comprehensive details.

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 implies the tool is used when all item details are needed, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it. The context of sibling tools suggests it is the go-to for comprehensive item info.

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