Get Item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a non-obvious side effect: the item is NOT marked as viewed, preserving notifications. That is genuinely valuable behavioral context an agent could not infer. It stops short of covering auth requirements, error behavior, or the returned payload shape.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler. The core purpose leads, with the optional parameter and the notification side effect following in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the optional narrowing parameter, and the key non-obvious side effect. Only the absence of any hint about failure modes or return contents keeps it from being fully complete.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the 'reduce response size' rationale for fields. The description largely restates that, adding the external_id/field_id distinction that the schema also carries, so it meets but does not exceed the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves a Podio item by ID'), which cleanly separates it from list/filter siblings like podio_filter_items and podio_list_apps. The agent knows exactly what it gets back 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?

Usage is only implied by the 'by ID' framing; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over podio_filter_items or podio_filter_items_by_view. The fields-array advice is parameter guidance rather than when-to-use guidance.

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