item_get

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that secret-bearing values (passwords, SSH keys, OTP seeds, card numbers) are hidden by default, lists the non-secret types that are shown, and warns that revealing places the secret in the model context/transcript. It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate-limit behavior, 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?

Content is front-loaded — what is retrieved first, then the reveal semantics, then the op_run alternative. It is dense but every sentence earns its place; the only mild cost is that the second sentence packs several lists into one long clause.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key things an agent needs: what is returned, what is redacted by default, how to select the item, and the safer alternative for using secrets. Remaining gaps (auth prerequisites, error modes) are minor given there is no output schema to lean on.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100% (baseline 3), the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the op://vault/item/field reference format, the precedence rule that secretReference causes vaultId/itemId to be ignored, and the hidden-vs-visible type taxonomy tied to reveal. That extra semantic layer justifies a bump above baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a full 1Password item') and enumerates the returned surface (title, category, tags, notes, all fields), which implicitly separates it from lighter siblings like item_lookup or item_list. An agent can tell what shape of result it gets without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear routing guidance for the secret-handling case: 'to USE a secret in a command or API call, prefer op_run with op:// references instead,' which is an explicit alternative and a when-not for reveal=true. It does not, however, clarify when to choose item_get over item_lookup or item_list, so the coverage is strong but not exhaustive.

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