get_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'The item data if found' and raises 'ValueError: If the item is not found,' which adds useful context about success and error conditions. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits like whether it's read-only or has side effects.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter meaning, and error conditions. However, it lacks context on when to use versus siblings and behavioral details like auth needs, which could be improved for a tool in a set with create/delete/update operations.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the parameter: 'item_id: The unique identifier of the item.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's type definition. Since there is only one parameter, the description effectively covers it, though it could provide more details like format or examples.

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's purpose: 'Get a specific item by ID.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('item'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_items' (which retrieves multiple items) or 'health_check' (which checks server status), though the specificity of 'by ID' implies a distinction.

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 usage by stating 'Get a specific item by ID,' suggesting it should be used when you have a known item ID. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_items' (for browsing items) or 'create_item' (for adding new items). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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