item-service-get-item-descendants

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't confirm safety, rate limits, authentication needs, or return format. For a tool with complex options and no structured safety hints, this is insufficient.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It front-loads the core purpose effectively, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the optional 'options' parameter, return values, or behavioral traits like error handling, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions the 'id' parameter, ignoring the 'options' object with 6 nested properties (e.g., database, language, includeMetadata). This leaves most parameters unexplained, failing to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 descendants') and resource ('Sitecore item by its ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'item-service-get-item-children' or 'item-service-get-item', which might retrieve different scopes of item data. This prevents a perfect score.

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, such as 'item-service-get-item-children' for immediate children only or 'item-service-get-item' for the item itself. It also lacks prerequisites like required permissions or database context, leaving usage context unclear.

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