get_contributor_network_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It lists the payload fields (content, solverCode, etc.) but does not mention error handling, authorization requirements beyond scope, or any side effects. The behavior is adequately described for a read operation but lacks depth.

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 brief (two sentences plus a list), front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase adds value. No redundant information.

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 simplicity (1 required param, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and return payload. It lacks mention of error scenarios or performance considerations, but for a read tool it is sufficiently 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?

The input schema has one parameter (item_id) with no description, and the tool description does not clarify what item_id expects (e.g., format, source). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add any meaning beyond the parameter name.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('Contributor Network item with full payload'), and distinguishes from siblings like list_contributor_network_items or get_contributor_network_item_benchmark by specifying included fields such as content, solverCode, and parent lineage.

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 includes usage scope ('contributor-network.read') but does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or provide guidance on when not to use it. The purpose is straightforward for a getter, so no explicit exclusions are given.

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