acc_get_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' aligns with that. The description adds context about the returned data (tip version, process/review state), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, permission requirements, or rate limits. With annotations covering the read-only safety profile, the added context is moderately useful.

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, tightly constructed sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists key output fields. No wasted words; every part is informative.

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 read-only lookup with only two parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides adequate context about the tool's purpose and the data returned. It doesn't cover edge cases or error conditions, but these are not essential for a straightforward get operation.

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?

Both parameters (project_id, item_id) are fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a file's info and its current (tip) version, listing specific fields (version number, size, file type, etc.). The verb 'Get' and the resource 'file's info and current version' are specific, and this differentiates from siblings like acc_list_item_versions (which lists all versions) and acc_get_docs_metadata (which may return document metadata).

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or how it compares to sibling tools like acc_list_item_versions or acc_get_docs_metadata. The usage context is only implied by the description itself, but no explicit alternatives are provided.

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