provider-get-item-by-query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Gets'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if multiple items match the query. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, 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?

Given the complexity of a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, and behavioral context, making it incomplete for effective agent use despite the concise structure.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying query execution, aligning with the baseline score when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Gets') and resource ('a Sitecore item'), specifying it uses a 'Sitecore query' method. It distinguishes from siblings like 'provider-get-item-by-id' or 'provider-get-item-by-path' by emphasizing query-based retrieval, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other query tools like 'item-service-run-stored-query' or 'indexing-find-item'.

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. With many sibling tools for item retrieval (e.g., by ID, path, URI, or other query methods), the description lacks context on preferred scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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