Get Item

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

With readOnlyHint already declaring safety, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: secret fields and signed attachment URLs are redacted by default, reveal is permission-gated and can be overridden by NOREVEAL, and missing attachments may require sync. This goes well beyond the annotation.

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, dense, and made of sentences that each contribute necessary operational detail: redaction, reveal gating, attachment retrieval, and sync retry. There is little wasted wording.

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 read-only item getter with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the important behavioral context: redaction, secret reveal permissions, attachment handling, and stale-attachment recovery. Nothing critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning by constraining reveal to callers allowed to receive secrets and clarifying that id is a stable item identifier, which is useful beyond the schema text.

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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (full vault item) with the stable item id as scope. It distinguishes the tool from sibling getters by emphasizing the full item and redaction behavior, and from attachment-specific retrieval.

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 gives explicit when/when-not guidance for reveal=true, notes NOREVEAL can force redaction, routes attachment retrieval to keychain_get_attachment, and directs missing-recent-attachment cases to keychain_sync before retrying. These are concrete usage conditions and alternatives.

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