items_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does convey a read-only fetch via 'Get'. However, it does not expand on what 'full details' includes, nor on failure behavior (e.g., 404), potential auth requirements, or response shape.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word adds meaning. 'Get full details of a single item by ID' is maximally concise for its purpose.

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-id read, this is mostly adequate, but with no output schema or annotations, the agent is left guessing what 'full details' contains and how errors are signaled. A bit more specificity would make it complete.

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 coverage is 100%, with the 'id' parameter already well documented as a Homebox item UUID. The description's 'by ID' adds no additional semantic information about the parameter.

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 names a specific action ('Get') and resource ('full details of a single item') with a clear selection key ('by ID'). It differentiates from siblings such as items_list or items_path, which serve different resources or 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?

It implies the proper use case—retrieve one item's details when you have its UUID—but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as items_list for lists of items.

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