get_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'complete details', implying that the response includes all fields unless the optional 'fields' parameter limits them. This is a small behavioral insight, but not rich context about return formats, error behavior, or pagination. With annotations present, this is a minimal but acceptable contribution.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word earns its place. This is an example of efficient writing.

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?

For a simple read operation with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It conveys the core purpose and the role of sys_id. It lacks any mention of not-found behavior or relationship to sibling tools, but given the low complexity and absence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not explain each parameter beyond what the schema already provides. The phrase 'complete details' hints at the behavior of the optional 'fields' parameter (omitting it returns everything), which adds marginal value, but overall the description does little to enhance parameter understanding 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 clearly states the operation: 'Retrieve complete details of a specific record by sys_id'. It names the resource (record), the action (retrieve), and the key identifier (sys_id), which makes the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like query_records or get_table_schema, so it falls short of a 5.

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 that this is for retrieving a single record by ID as opposed to query_records for searching lists or get_table_schema for metadata. No exclusions or context are provided, so the agent receives no decision-making help.

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