get_action_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing the returned fields (including optional ones) and explicitly noting that the list tools already return the same per-item fields, implying a redundant call is unnecessary. This goes beyond the annotation baseline without contradicting it.

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 tightly organized with clear semantic labels (USE WHEN, USE INSTEAD, FIRST, EXAMPLE, RETURNS). The purpose is front-loaded, and every line carries functional information. There is zero fluff; each section earns its place by guiding the agent's decision.

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-ID fetch tool with no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: the source of the ID, the return shape, the differentiation from siblings, and an example. The complexity is low, and the description fully covers the decision and invocation path. No essential information is missing.

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 covers one of two parameters (response_fields has a description), leaving id without schema-level documentation. The description compensates by explaining where id comes from (list_my_action_items results[].id) and gives an example value. However, it does not mention the response_fields parameter at all, which is a minor gap given the schema already documents it. Overall, the description adds meaningful meaning to the critical id parameter.

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 opens with a precise verb-object pair, 'Get one action item by its ID, with full detail,' and immediately distinguishes this tool from the list siblings by stating it operates on a single ID. The scope is explicit and the differentiation is clear without needing to inspect sibling schemas.

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 uses labeled sections (USE WHEN, USE INSTEAD, FIRST) to give explicit usage context. It names the alternatives (list_my_action_items, list_action_items), states when to choose them (no ID yet), and warns that a follow-up call is usually wasted because those already return the same fields. This is exceptionally clear routing.

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