things_get_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read behavior is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by disclosing that the response includes the revision, which is important for the editing workflow. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One tight sentence with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the revision detail is appended efficiently without repeating schema or annotation information.

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 operation with strong safety annotations and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: fetch one item by kind and stable id and get its revision for editing. It is slightly short of a 5 because it does not mention not-found/error behavior, but that is a minor gap given the output schema and annotations.

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 needs to compensate. It does name both parameters ('kind' and 'stable ID') and adds the useful note that the id is stable. However, it does not elaborate on enum values or id format, though the schema itself provides detailed constraints for those.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('one Things item'), and the lookup method ('by kind and stable ID'). The phrase 'one item' clearly separates it from sibling search/list tools like things_find_items, and the read action distinguishes it from mutation siblings like things_update_item or things_trash_item.

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 phrase 'including its revision for safe editing' gives clear context: this tool should be used when the agent needs the current revision before performing an edit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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