Paragraphs Item Get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states a read-like operation but does not disclose permissions, error behavior when an ID is missing, or any other runtime trait beyond the basic verb.

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 with no wasted words. While it is under-specified for the tool's full behavior, the sentence itself is appropriately sized and structurally clean.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, given no annotations and 0% input schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented include parameter and clarify basic read behavior, which it does not.

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% for two parameters, and the description only hints at the required paragraph_id through the phrase 'by ID'. The include parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a substantial gap.

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'), resource ('paragraph item'), and scope ('single' and 'by ID'), which distinguishes it from list/create/update/delete siblings. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools, but the retrieval scope is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like paragraphs_item_list or paragraphs_item_update. It only implies retrieval by ID and offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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