ragic_get_record

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only ('Read one record') and specifies the input key (`_ragicId`). However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It fails to mention behavioral traits like what happens if the record is not found, required permissions, rate limits, or the structure of the response. The detail about the ID source adds some transparency, but overall it is minimal.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and key input. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool's 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the return format, error behavior, the meaning of optional parameters, or how the tool fits into a workflow (e.g., 'Use after getting `_ragicId` from `ragic_list_records`'). This leaves an AI agent with significant gaps for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has 9 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description only mentions `record_id` implicitly via `_ragicId`. It does not explain the purpose of `path`, `sheet_index`, or the boolean flags (`info`, `naming`, `history`, `approval`, `subtables`, `ignore_mask`). For a tool with many optional parameters, this is severely lacking and provides almost no value beyond the schema's property titles.

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 action ('Read one record') and the resource ('by its Ragic node id'). It specifies the identifier field (`_ragicId` in list responses), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like `ragic_list_records` (multiple records) and `ragic_create_record` (write operation).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., `ragic_search` or `ragic_list_records` with filters). The description implies you need the record ID from a list response, but does not state prerequisites, when to avoid, or context like 'Use this for fetching a single known record; for bulk retrieval, use `ragic_list_records`.'

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