common-get-item-referrer-by-path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'gets' items, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires permissions, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or details error handling. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool with four parameters.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's function, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity (four parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format (e.g., what 'showing which items reference it' entails), and usage context, failing to compensate for the absence of structured metadata.

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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters (path, database, language, version) with examples and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 with a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('items referring to a Sitecore item by its path'), explaining it retrieves referrers. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'common-get-item-referrer-by-id' or 'common-get-item-reference-by-path', which likely serve similar purposes but with different identifiers, missing explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid Sitecore path, or comparisons to siblings like 'common-get-item-referrer-by-id', leaving the agent without usage direction.

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