record_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that sensitive fields are masked, the script_fields list is dynamically resolved, and ambiguous name matches return an error. This provides sufficient transparency for a read operation.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and structured with an Args section for clarity. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description need not cover return values. It adequately covers input constraints, behavioral nuances (masking, script_fields), and error conditions. A small gap is the lack of mention of rate limits or authentication, but these are acceptable omissions for a read tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the purpose of each parameter: table is the ServiceNow table, sys_id and name are mutually exclusive lookup keys, and name resolves via query with error on ambiguity. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states 'Fetch a record by sys_id or name from any table,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like record_write (write) and query (list/search) by focusing on single-record fetch.

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 explicitly states that exactly one of sys_id or name must be supplied, and explains the mutual exclusivity. It also provides context about tables with zero script fields. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like query or record_write, which would help the agent decide when to use this tool.

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