item_get_take_by_index

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds the useful detail that the index is 1-based, which prevents off-by-one errors, but it does not disclose what 'info' is returned, whether an invalid index causes an error, or any other behavioral nuances. This modest addition is consistent with the annotation.

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, compact sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It contains no filler, restates the tool name, or repeats obvious information. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 the low complexity of the operation, the presence of an output schema, and the read-only annotation, the short description is largely sufficient. It could be improved by noting that the item must already have takes or clarifying the return structure, but the output schema likely covers that. The omission of explicit alternatives is a minor gap, but overall the context is adequately complete for this simple getter.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, including the 1-based nature of take_index. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns information about a specific take identified by a 1-based index, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('info about a take'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like item_get_takes_count (counts takes) and item_select_take_by_index (selects a take), though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred use cases. A user might infer it is for retrieving take data, but no explicit context or comparison to related item_get_* tools is offered.

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