show_item

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

With no annotations, the description partially covers behavior: it mentions the format constraint for filter_tags and the special id values. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication, or side effects, leaving gaps.

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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and uses a structured Args section. The filter_tags instruction, though lengthy, is important for correctness. No unnecessary content.

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?

The description covers purpose and parameter details adequately but lacks usage guidance and behavioral context (e.g., invalid ID handling). Given the presence of an output schema, return value explanations are not needed. Overall, adequate but with gaps.

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%, and the description adds critical meaning: it enumerates special id values, explains query as optional filtering, and gives a crucial note on filter_tags array format. This significantly aids correct usage.

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 'Show a specific item or list in Things' and lists the special IDs (inbox, today, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling get_* tools that only fetch specific lists. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those tools.

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 guidance on when to use show_item versus alternatives like get_today or get_inbox. It lists possible id values but does not explain trade-offs or exclusions.

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