get_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the key trait: 'Always safe to call; never writes anything,' plus the returned payload (metadata, tags, comments, links, uploads). It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or behavior when the ID is not found, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return contents, then safety. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return-shape explanation is not required, yet the description still names the returned fields helpfully. For a single-parameter read tool with no annotations this is nearly complete, with only not-found/permission edge cases unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'id' property has only a type. The description compensates by specifying the ID is numeric and identifies the entity class it addresses, giving the agent enough to construct a valid call.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch), resource (single elabFTW database item / resource), and scope (by its numeric ID). This clearly distinguishes it from list_items and from get_experiment/get_item_type siblings that target different resource types.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should be used when it already has an item ID. There is no explicit when-to-use, no contrast with list_items (fetch many) or resolve_entity_by_query, and no stated prerequisite. The sentence about safety addresses behavior, not selection.

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