get_item_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the safety profile ("Always safe to call; never writes anything") plus the shape of the returned record. It omits error behavior for an invalid or missing ID and any permission requirements, leaving modest gaps.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler, leading with the action and ID requirement. The sentence enumerating return fields is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, costing a little efficiency.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the agent gets purpose, discovery path, and safety in one place. Missing only edge-case guidance (invalid ID handling), which is a minor rather than a blocking gap.

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 schema's bare "Id" integer is all the structured data offers. The description adds that it is the item type's *numeric* ID and hints where IDs come from (list_item_types), but gives no constraints, range, or failure modes for the value.

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 and resource ("Fetch a single elabFTW item type by its numeric ID") and the word "single" implicitly contrasts with the list sibling. It does not address the nearby get_item sibling, so full sibling differentiation is not achieved.

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?

"Use list_item_types to discover item types" names the alternative and the condition that selects it, giving the agent a clear routing path. It stops short of stating explicitly when this tool (versus that one) is the right call, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not rule.

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