get_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does substantial work: it explains the return composition, how max_chars affects body and attachments, that truncated text is marked, and that school-provided content is untrusted data rather than instructions. It does not explicitly state whether the call has side effects such as marking an item seen, nor does it describe error behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core operation and then adds only high-value details: truncation behavior and the untrusted-content warning. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary repetition.

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?

There is no output schema or annotation coverage, so the description needs to explain return structure and behavior. It does so by describing the header/body/attachment sequence, truncation marking, and security handling. It is still missing usage guidance and any side-effect or error details, which 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaningful semantics for max_chars, including that the limit is shared across body and attachments and that cut text is marked. The id parameter is not elaborated beyond 'one item', but its role is largely self-evident.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: get one item, and it clarifies that the result includes the header, body, and each attachment's text. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_attachment_text or get_thread_context.

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 describes what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like search, grep_item, get_attachment_text, or get_thread_context. The agent must infer selection from the output description alone.

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