view_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('view') and the content returned, but does not mention that the output may contain sensitive data (passwords), nor does it explicitly confirm a read-only nature, permissions, or error behavior. This is a notable gap for a tool that exposes secrets.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key verb and resource, then lists examples of the content. Every word contributes to clarity with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the low complexity (two parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns by listing the full field types. It could be more complete by noting that the output contains sensitive data or that the item must belong to the specified vault, but it is sufficient for basic 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('Item ID' and 'Vault share ID'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('View') and resource ('item'), and enumerates the full details returned (title, username, password, URLs, notes, custom fields). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_items, which likely provide a summary, and view_secret, which handles a different resource type.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_items for summaries, view_secret for secrets). Usage is only implied by the tool's name and purpose, with no mention of exclusions or preferred contexts.

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