keepit_get_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the breadth of the payload (metadata, tags, path, link, both text and markdown content), implying a read-only, non-destructive fetch, but it says nothing about permissions, behavior on missing/trashed items, or whether content may be truncated or large.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the payload without filler; every clause earns its place and nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter getter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately tells the agent what comes back, so return values need no further explanation. It stops just short of complete by omitting error/not-found behavior and any note on content size or truncation.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains 'unique ID or exact name'. The description adds no format, case-sensitivity, or ambiguity-resolution detail (e.g., what happens if name is not unique), so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a Keep It item) and enumerates the returned fields (metadata, tags, file path, link, text/markdown content), which implicitly separates it from keepit_search_items and keepit_get_current_item. However, it never names a sibling, so an agent must infer the differentiation from the required lookup key rather than being told.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as keepit_search_items, keepit_get_current_item, or keepit_get_selected_items. The description only says what it returns, leaving tool selection entirely to inference.

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