get_item_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only explains input formats and does not describe what 'properties' are returned, error conditions, or whether the operation has any side effects. The 'get' verb implies read-only, but no additional context is given.

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 reasonably concise and structured with a heading and bullet-point style. However, there is slight redundancy where item_id is described both in the list and in the args block, which could be tightened.

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 simple getter, the description covers the necessary input identification well. But it lacks information about the output format (despite an output schema existing) and does not provide usage context or alternatives. It is adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral and usage understanding.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains both parameters: track_index as 'Index of the track' and item as either an integer track_pos_idx or string direct_item_id, with examples. This provides meaningful context beyond the bare schema types.

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 'Get properties of a media item', specifying the verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools by focusing on item properties, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other item-specific getters like get_item_position or get_item_length.

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. It explains how to identify items (via track_pos_idx or direct_item_id) but does not mention any exclusions or when this tool is preferred over similar getters.

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