get_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of 'retrieve' is consistent but adds no additional behavioral context beyond what is in the annotations. No contradictions are present.

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 succinct sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the verb and object. It contains no unnecessary words or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with no output schema, and the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain the return format or any default behavior, such as whether all fields are returned.

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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or clarification beyond what is in 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 clearly states the action (retrieve), the resource (record), and the method (by sys_id). It is a generic tool that works on any table, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from specialized sibling tools like get_incident or get_user, which may offer more tailored functionality.

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 alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for searches by other criteria, use query_records) or note any prerequisites like required permissions.

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