get_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool performs a 'get' operation, which implies read-only behavior, but does not disclose error handling (e.g., whether a missing record throws an error or returns null), permission requirements, or rate limits. The description adds no context beyond the operation itself.

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 one short sentence that immediately conveys the core action. There is no redundant wording or filler; every word contributes to the purpose. This is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.

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 simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema or annotations), the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to understand its basic function. However, the lack of behavioral details (e.g., not-found behavior) and absence of any guidance on return format means the description is not fully complete, especially in the absence of annotations and output schema.

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%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It mentions 'by its Id,' which relates to record_id, but it does not clarify what table_id is for or how the two IDs interact. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 'Get a single record by its Id' is specific with a clear verb ('get'), resource ('record'), and scope ('single by Id'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_records (which lists multiple) and create/update/delete records, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when a specific record ID is known, but it does not explicitly contrast with list_records or provide criteria for when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative references are given, so usage guidance is only implicit from the verb and parameter names.

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