item_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that concealed fields are hidden unless reveal is true, that revealing exposes the secret in the transcript, and that secret references take precedence over IDs. It could add error behavior or permission requirements, but the key security-relevant traits are well covered.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by key behavioral caveats. Every clause adds value (full-item retrieval, hidden fields, input modes, security warning, op_run alternative). No fluff or repetition of obvious schema details.

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 purpose, input modes, return contents, and security implications. It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning potential errors or contrasting with item_lookup (likely a lighter variant), but overall sufficient for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it restates the secret-reference vs. ID relationship already in the parameter descriptions. It adds context about the return contents but not for parameter usage specifically.

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 'Retrieve a full 1Password item' with a specific verb and resource, enumerating contents (title, category, tags, notes, all fields). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing the full-item scope and the secret-reference mode, avoiding ambiguity with item_lookup or op_run.

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 gives explicit when-not guidance: revealing a secret puts it in the transcript, and 'to USE a secret in a command or API call, prefer op_run with op:// references instead.' This clearly directs the agent to alternatives for secret consumption while implying this tool is for retrieval.

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