get-key-value-store-record

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context: 'The response preserves the original Content-Encoding; most clients handle decompression automatically.' This goes beyond annotations and clarifies response handling.

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 very concise: one sentence for purpose, one for encoding behavior, a short usage line, and two examples. Every part is useful and no redundant information.

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 simple tool (2 required parameters, no output schema, high schema coverage, clear annotations), the description provides adequate context: explains the type of content, encoding, and usage. It is complete enough for an agent to use 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (keyValueStoreId and recordKey). The description adds value by specifying that records can be JSON, text, or binary, which is not in the schema. Baseline is 3, but the extra detail raises it to 4.

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 tool retrieves a value from a key-value store by key, specifying 'Get a value stored in a key-value store under a specific key.' It distinguishes from siblings like abort-actor-run or call-actor by focusing on a specific retrieval 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?

The description includes a 'USAGE' section specifying when to use the tool ('when you need to retrieve a specific record (JSON, text, or binary) from a store') and provides two usage examples. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is sufficient for most agents.

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