nexo_closure_item_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the return content but does not reveal that this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, auth requirements, or error behavior. For a simple get, minimal disclosure but insufficient for full transparency.

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 a single, short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) that could aid readability, but given the simplicity, this is acceptable.

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?

Given the presence of many sibling closure tools and no output schema, the description is too terse. It does not explain what a 'closure item' is, how to use the returned data, or how this tool fits into the closure workflow. Agent might need more context to invoke correctly.

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% (description mentions no parameters). The single required parameter 'item_id' is not explained—what it represents, how to obtain it, or format. The tool name implies it's a closure item ID, but the description adds no value beyond the schema's existence.

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 the tool returns a single closure item, including its sources and events. This specifies the verb (return), resource (closure item), and scope (one with sources/events), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like nexo_closure_close or nexo_closure_status which perform other actions.

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 this tool versus the many sibling closure tools (e.g., nexo_closure_triage, nexo_closure_verify). It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions. The context implicitly suggests retrieving an item by ID, but explicit usage guidance is absent.

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