jfrog_get_item_properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., behavior for repository root, property key filtering, or error handling), but it does not contradict the annotations and appropriately identifies the operation as read-only.

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, concise sentence with no filler or redundant content. It earns its place by stating the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple read-only nature, the output schema, and comprehensive parameter descriptions, the minimal description is sufficient. However, it lacks any contextual cues about property key filtering or how the path parameter relates to the repository root, which are left entirely to the schema.

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?

All three parameters have extensive descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description itself adds no parameter-level detail. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 'Get properties for one JFrog file or folder' with a specific verb, resource, and object. It distinguishes itself from siblings like jfrog_get_item_stats and jfrog_list_path by focusing on properties for a single item.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as jfrog_get_item_info or jfrog_find_files. It relies entirely on the tool name and minimal description, offering only implied usage without exclusions or alternatives.

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