Item Get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and mostly does: it discloses graceful degradation (missing items returned as {key|id, missing: true} without failing others), the batching limit (up to 20 per call), and ordering guarantees. It omits any auth/permission or addressee-side effects, but the batch and partial-failure semantics are genuinely useful.

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?

Front-loaded verb phrase followed by clearly labeled sections (Use quando, Retorna, Exemplo, Notas). Every line carries usable information with no filler, and the concrete example grounds the wire format.

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 6-param, zero-schema-coverage tool the description covers the critical operational facts: batch limit, key-addressing prerequisites, and missing-item handling. An output schema exists so return-shape docs are a bonus rather than required; only the unlabeled ids/domain/connection_id semantics remain a 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 coverage is 0% across 6 params, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the keys/project/workspace/domain relationship ('keys exigem project... ou workspace e domain') and id/key dual addressing, but leaves 'ids', 'domain', and 'connection_id' uninterpreted, so coverage is partial rather than complete.

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 ('Lê') and resource ('itens completos') with an explicit scope enumeration (content, tags, relations, attachments) and distinguishes itself from the search/context summary path that returns less. An agent can tell it apart from item_search without opening either 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?

Has an explicit 'Use quando' block naming the trigger condition (search/context summary was insufficient), which effectively routes away from item_search and context_get. However, it does not name those alternatives explicitly or state when NOT to use it.

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