item-service-get-item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns partial vs. full item data, or handles errors. The description lacks crucial context about what 'Get' entails beyond the basic action.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse 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?

For a tool with 2 parameters (including a complex nested object), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't compensate for the missing structured information about parameters, behavior, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (one required 'id' and one complex 'options' object with 6 sub-properties), the description adds no parameter information beyond what's inferred from the tool name. It doesn't explain what the 'id' represents, what the 'options' control, or how they affect the retrieval, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a Sitecore item by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'item-service-get-item-by-path' or 'provider-get-item-by-id', which perform similar retrieval operations using different identifiers.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for retrieving items (e.g., 'item-service-get-item-by-path', 'provider-get-item-by-id'), there's no indication of when ID-based retrieval is preferred over path-based or other methods, nor any mention of prerequisites or constraints.

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