get_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it retrieves items, omitting any details about read-only behavior, handling of invalid IDs, pagination, or response structure. The term 'Get' hints at a safe operation, but the lack of elaboration leaves significant gaps.

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 sentence of seven words, front-loaded with the key verb and object. It contains zero redundancy and efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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?

The tool is a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, so the description need not be long. However, it does not state what the response looks like or what happens when IDs are missing/invalid. It is minimally complete for the task but lacks edge-case detail.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter (item_ids as array of strings), and the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond that. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no additional semantic value is provided.

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 verb 'Get' is specific, the resource 'items' is clear, and the qualifier 'by their IDs' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_feed_items or list_feeds. This removes ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 phrase 'specific items by their IDs' implies the tool is for fetching items when you already know their IDs, which provides some context. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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